User talk:Bishonen

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Would you like a Swedish massage? (last chance).

Wikimood

Bookmarks

ice sandbox favorites removing warnings moods RFAr/V RFAr/Giano RFAr/Ghirlandajo BD on ANI

User:BabyDweezil has begun violating your Ban...

• Just a friendly heads up, it appears that User:BabyDweezil has begun to violate your ban on multiple pages, and continue to remove content from article mainpages, without achieving consensus on talkpages, whilst still giving highly inappropriate remarks in edit summaries... Might want to check it out. Yours, Smee 19:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I would appreciate a review of my edits and a discussion which ones were inappropriate etc. In the meantime, Smee's incessant hounding of me and increasingly hostile behavior rather than discuss any of the changes I have made or respond to my reasoning is beginning to get annoying. BabyDweezil 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a recent deletion. Tilman is only trying to restore material that BabyDweezil had deleted earlier without discussion. Tanaats 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed the edit at length. The editors who keep restoring it have offered no evidence in favor of keeping this fringe, ad hominen attack on a scholar in a "criticism" section. I would appreciate if editors spent less time posting notices that I have been "banned" all over talk pages (for just one example, [here]) and focused on making improvements to the article, as I have. Thank you. BabyDweezil 16:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Russian Orthodox Church is not "fringe", nor is Prof. Alexander Dvorkin, PhD. --Tilman 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil, you are continuing with your practice of deleting well-sourced material without consensus. Tanaats 23:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Another. Tanaats 19:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Another. Tanaats 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• A very serious threat to slash the Mind control article. Tanaats 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Threat to perform a unilateral deletion on Cult. Tanaats 21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Bishonen, please protect Mind control. Tanaats 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Again.

I've no intention of protecting yet another page for the sake of one combative editor; on the contrary, I'm unprotecting Cult apologist now. Please see [1]. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, my log shows 15 edits that were made by BabyDweezil on Cult apologist without consensus. Do I have to worry about 3RR if I start putting the material back in? Tanaats 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you do. BD was editing unconstructively, but that still wasn't vandalism, what he was doing. Please assume good faith and try to make plans for compromise when he returns. I still hope there'll be room for it. Bishonen | talk 09:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

My block

A look at the discussions show the other editors are obstinately refusing to discuss the edits, stonewalling, responding to requests for comments with abuse, and are being serially uncivil. You, Bishonen, are being entirely biased and supporting the most blatant form of simple-minded POV pushing on Wikipedia by a handful of biased editors who resort to acting like crybabies and tattletales and offering exaggerated complaints, fabrications and outright lies rather than respond to requests to civilly and intelligently discuss articles. c'est la vie, see ya in a day or so. BabyDweezil 23:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We will start afresh when he returns today. Thanks. Tanaats 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

TEH ZILLAS ARE BREEDING

I've moved the Bishzilla "RFA" here: User:Bishonen/Bishzilla RFA. For some reason it ended up listed on the main RFA page, probably because it shared the naming format of a legitimate RFA. Regardless, it was causing confusion, so it's best to be clear that it's a joke and name the page accordingly. --Cyde Weys 13:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishzilla is supposed to cause confusion. And panic. And massive destruction. --Ideogram 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the page was created by Bunchofgrapes, why wouldn't you move it to User:Bunchofgrapes/Bishzilla RFA or User:Bishzilla/Bishzilla RFA instead? Or perhaps its original title User:Bishzilla/Nomination. NoSeptember 13:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know, nor particularly care, who originally started it, as my only goal was to prevent the confusion that having it listed under RFA space was causing. If you have a better idea for a location you are more than welcome to move it as you see fit, just so long as it doesn't go back under Wikipedia: space again. --Cyde Weys 17:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So, you didn't know who made it, didn't investigate it, didn't know where it should go, but went ahead anyway? And you're sounding resentful of someone asking you to investigate before you act? Well, "why else would someone want to be an admin?" Geogre 21:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Someone who's username is obviously a pun, who so dislikes humour? Ben Aveling 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oh hell, Christ! I had never realised it was a pun, why have I not seen that before....I have just seen it Cyde Weys - "Side Ways"...that's really very good..but why "side ways" Cyde? Giano 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oh! - jump back in shock - Cyde! - double hop! I just came over here to see if anything intersting was happening - fancy seeing you here - have you joined - you'll have people talking about us - we can't go on meeting like this Cyde - but I do like a man with a pink signature ;-) Giano 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A man said of someone, they "are not known for any extraordinary ebullitions of wit or mirth, and it is not prudent to try it upon them." Geogre 21:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If only you had said before. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this conversation has been so consciousness-raising. --Cyde Weys 21:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I quite like the Germans actually, I met one sitting next to me on a plane once - this is completely true - I promise - we were on our way to Geneva, and (as one does) he asked if I was on business, and I said - yes, and then being a well brought up person, I said "and yourself?" and he said he was going to see a specialist in Switzerland because he suffered from premature ejaculation - I opened my book and read it with fervour without looking up for three hours, but to this day I wonder was he joking? Opinions invited. Giano 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's a valuable reference point, Omid Djalili the Persian comedian has said, "I'm the only Iranian comedian... Don't laugh! That's three more than Germany!" Pinkville 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he found you distracting? ;) The Rambling Man 22:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, he, too, was thinking of blocking, although of extraordinary ebullitions or mirth. The real question, however, is what the Expert in Geneva was like, and whether or not he's the Ceiling Cat vandal. Geogre 11:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything could possibly be more obnoxious than this section.

Except maybe stomping on Tokyo. --Ideogram 18:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG. Run away!! Run away!!! -- ALoan (Talk) 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Help--an editor (Smee) is rampaging!! Eeek!

Kindly review the most recent edits by Smee, who is on a rather hostile rampage, blindly reverting edits by disfferent editors without explanations and with false claims of "vandalism. I tend not to want to "tattle" on editors, but this is ridiculous. BabyDweezil 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And please review the recent spate of edits by said complainant above, who is going around spreading vandalism, removing text as well as sourced citations from articles, without consensus or discussion of any kind on talk pages. Seems to be a pattern... Smee 04:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, here are some new edits by BD...

• Deleted the same ELs that he had deleted previously [2].
• His comment in response to my protest [3].
• Deleted the statement "This was in contradiction with police reports that had discovered at Aum's main compound in March, of a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison."[4].
• Another deletion [5].

* Deletion of an EL [6]. Oops, that was only a move. Tanaats 05:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

About Keith Henson (I'll get to the rest later): BabyDweezil, I hope you've noticed that I'm in no hurry to label editing "vandalism" as long as it can possibly be construed as good faith. But carpet-bombing the article with {{fact}} tags as in this edit, including (for god's sake) the basic summary in the introduction, is IMO nothing less than vandalism. Please tell me what exactly in the intro you consider unreferenced, for instance. You're disrupting Keith Henson and heading for another block. As for Smeelgova, I would still advise him aginst using the word "vandalism" in edit summaries. It's a good principle. Bishonen | talk 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, have you read Keith Henson? Can yuo honestly tell me that that isn't perhaps the most extreme form of POV pushing, original research unsourced, overblown relative to importance personal essays masquerading as a biography on Wikipedia. It's so bad it's laughable, and some I'm vandalizing it by adding fact tags and removing pointless references that have nothing to do with, and source no claims in the article? BabyDweezil 08:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Duly noted, thank you I will take your advice under consideration. Here is some more evidence for you : DIFF Yours, Smee 06:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

• Re-deletion of "This was in contradiction with police reports that had discovered at Aum's main compound in March, of a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison."[7]. Tanaats 06:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Lengthy PA[8]. Tanaats 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Defense of his prior deletion of "This was in contradiction with..." (see above).[9]. He is correct that the first few words were OR'ish, but he should have edited it rather than delete it. His consistent argument for many of his deletions is that it is not his job to fix things. Tanaats 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm sorry for what I said, and got the wrong end of the stick. I still don't see why you keep sticking up for Giano, as I've found him to be incredibly obnoxious to be honest, although I jumped the gun before he got the first punch in. This stems from the Palladian FAR, which I still don't feel should've been closed (but that's another story).

Anyway, as concerns your conduct as an admin which I got the wrong stick about... after the Palladian FAR, a few Wikipedians I don't speak to emailed me and said I'm best off steering clear of Giano and friends of his, and yourself was named. I'm not going to say what people emailed me, as they aired their views privately and I don't wish to lay the blame elsewhere as concerns what I said. Anyway, I browsed Giano's edit history, and there was some spat with a user called David something (Gerard possibly?) and another incident with Ideogram where you reported Ideogram's before - and well, thought, it must be correct then. And when I saw somewhere you'd unblocked Giano, I thought it must be true. I also figured that should someone annoy Giano, you'd get involved, and then they'd end up getting blocked. To be honest, I know admins can block people, but not much else. People are talking about IRC (Marskell tried explaining what it is a little, but I still haven't a clue what it is), de-sysopping (I don't know what this is, but I'm assuming it's where one would be stripped of their powers), RFA (??) and other things - I'm just a person who edits the odd article and hangs around at FAR, so I don't understand this language much. At the time, when I said what I said what I did I felt it to be true in my heart - I'd never knowingly say something false about a person, as I'm not that kind of person. I've since had time to consider what I said, and make more thorough inquiries into what I said. I feel really bad about the whole mess, and am extremely sorry for any offense or upset I may have caused you. If anyone questions your admin integrity in future based on this incident, I encourage you to email me and I'll back you up.

I'm extremely sorry the offer to accept an apology has expired, but I found the deluge of messages from various people (excluding yourself) on my page rather disturbing and frankly a little upsetting to be honest. It hurt, so my defense mechanism kicked in, and I'm sorry about that. I feel this is an issue between myself and you, and not all the other people who've left numerous messages on my page. While the situation is grave and rather serious, I don't feel they're helping the situation either. I'll admit that I'll never win a popularity contest on Wikipedia, but I thought other Wikipedians thought I was at least ok. It seems I'm not much liked though apparently, which I'm to mostly blame for really.

This isn't an attempt to lay the blame anywhere else, as I found your reply rather gracious under the circumstances. It took me by surprise really, as I'd found the incident a volatile situation from other quarters. It was commendable of you to keep level headed, and made me think twice of my previous judgment.

I wish for my apology to be seen as a sincere one, and not something that has been pressured out of me by the community. I'm not an insincere person believe it or not, and never have been. I don't wish to start now, but this apology is genuine. It comes from the bottom of my heart, and I hope you can accept it in that way. Anyway, I hope you take care, and really hope that you'll eventually find me to be a nice enough person, and not the one you may find me to be at present. Goodbye. LuciferMorgan 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology, Lucifer, though not your lack of value for the work Giano does for Wikipedia. Perhaps you should do your own research in that quarter, too, and not take everything you read in hostile e-mails for gospel. Please consider that with messages from people you don't know, you also don't know their motives. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• ....and so yet another Wikipedia editor bites the dust, having been drip fed poison. I visit FARC very seldom only when an article in which I have taken a long standing interest is deposited there. My sole encounters with Lucifer before the current review were on Palladian architecture's review (I wrote it - I have a right to be interested in it) [10] where Lucifer became more and more agitated and hostile in his comments. we now know why: [11] "a few Wikipedians I don't speak to emailed me and said I'm best off steering clear of Giano and friends" obviously was the cause of such comments out of the blue as this one [12] . The sad thing for whoever these mysterious people are who primed Lucifer is that he eventually went firing off at Bishonen who was the wrong target. Perhaps people like Sandy Georgia who make reproving comments like this [13] should confine themselves to addressing the root of the problem, which is those drop feeding the poison, rather than those seeking to establish, however belatedly, the truth. I hope eventually Lucifer feels able to return to the project, and when he does he is made welcome - I do though wonder how many other innocent editors minding their own business have their inboxes filled by strangers emailing unsolicited lies and venom about their own particular enemy of the day. Giano 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In the immortal words of Bill Hicks

File:Donald saddam.jpg

Superbest friends, forever for a time!

I am available for children's parties, by the way. El_C 12:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Now there was a comedian, at least until he started the "Goatboy" nonsense. "The Gulf War is like a defense contractor's Christmas party. 'What does #44 do?' 'It says, here, that it melts them down and leaves only their fillings.' 'I got to see that.' <whoosh> <wait> 'Cool! What does #45 do?'" Geogre 13:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We got the recipts! El_C 13:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't that a different comedian? "We know Iraq has WMD, because we've still got the receipts!" Geogre 14:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, see the bit where he immitates a US govt., saying: 'the Iraqi military has got powerful weapons' 'Well, how do you know?' 'We got the receipts.' El_C 14:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am blocked as Sockpuppet by 204.11.35.132

But the "log" does not mention it or tell me why. Is this a trick. I have no sockpuppets. Am I violating it now by writing you? Sincerely, Mattisse 14:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You've been blocked by an IP...? That would be funny, if it wasn't distressing to you. IP's can't block anybody. User:204.11.35.132 put a {{sockpuppeteer}} template on your userpage, that's all. (It's been reverted now.) The part I don't understand is the 3RR thing you mention in your mail—has the anon messaged you? I hope things have cleared up by now. In case they haven't, I've sent you a g-mail invite to chat, so we can figger out what's happening, if anything (my guess would be nothing). IRC would work, too. Don't worry, now. You obviously can edit—you edited this page—and there's no block in your log. You're not blocked. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Hate to butt in here, but don't you think it might be helpful to place a warning on the IP editor's talk page, since this was evidently a malicious action? - WeniWidiWiki 19:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I sort of don't feel like it—don't want to give the bastard a chuckle. I'm too sure that was a drive-by edit from a logged-out established user on a dynamic IP. This place depresses me sometimes. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Me too. However because of how long this particular run of harassment has been going, I think it's best to document the actions of the user in case it comes up again. - WeniWidiWiki 20:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with WiniWidiWiki. Sincerely, Mattisse 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tanaats

Hi. I notice that you've helped out User:Tanaats in the past. Would you be so kind as to leave this person a note explaining that I'm not a crazy person? I've bothered them while following up an OTRS complaint at International Cultic Studies Association. Jkelly 20:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jkelly, not only did you never identify yourself as an admin (although I knew it after you protected the page) but you never explained about the complaint. You only said that "someone complained", and that still before identifying yourself as an admin. It is not very compelling if just-another-editor says that "someone complained" as a reason for deleting well-sourced material.

Then you dropped that argument entirely, meaning to me that it wasn't a strong argument to begin with. You completely switched to the argument that for some reason we should not use the ICSA's own website as a reliable source for a list of who their staff was. The whole thing was incomprehensible to me.

Admittedly I have a short fuse about the unilateral deletion of well-sourced after the predations of an editor on Cult and Cult apologist. But I really do need a head slap and an explanation about how your conduct was completely proper. Then, as I said before, I will apologize profusely and walk away chastened. Tanaats 23:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Did I screw up?

Hi Bishonen,

So did I screw up?

Thanks. Tanaats 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see also here. I have two admins telling me that Jkelly's actions were proper. I must be crazy. I really don't see why Jkelley's actions were any better than that editor that you've had to block twice. If you can help me to see where I'm going wrong here I'd much appreciate it. Thanks much. Tanaats 01:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've finally replied on ANI, Tanaats. Bishonen | talk 03:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you

My grateful thanks for your assistance with Jack Sheppard, which is now a featured article. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Blast from the past

Bish, I was just browsing through some stuff from LONG AGO and found this. I thought you might get a kick out of it. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, nostalgia, Dante. For a while, I was in sole possession of CheeseDreams' password, how about that? I never dared use it, though, and it was burning a hole in my pocket, so I quickly passed it on to JRM, who changed it. He's in sole possession now—well, he's probably munged it, I expect. I didn't want to become an admin, indeed. I was enjoying the solicitations too much...! Happy days. :-D Bishonen | talk 19:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

File:Waltonsdvd.jpg

Night Bishonen, Night Geogre, Night mcGinnly, Night Paul etc etc..
Night Giacomo. Bishonen.

Battleship

Hello, hope things are well - long time no speak because I've .. well... not been around. Anyway, I happened upon you finding the OED definition of battleship here and mentioning that it wasn't quite complete. Any chance you could fill in any subtleties lose by your cut-and-paste from the other year? And do you know what the correct way to cite the OED is? Many thanks.... The Land 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, The! OMG, that's what you do when you let your hair down—read Geogre's archives? I'm afraid I can't get at the OED right now, because teh intarweb asplode. (Is it possible I hang around on IRC too much?) I mean, my uni proxy has been laid low by a virus. :-( I wonder if I can still see how to cite it, hmm... yes, check it out. Those are the instructions, but apparently you also get a full cite provided with each entry you look up. Hopefully I'll be able to do that in a few days' time. Do please remind me if I forget. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Indeed, I'm clearly bored and lonely ;) ... hope your internet connecito nhasn't got bird flu. Many thanks for your help. The Land 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletions on New religious movement

Hi Bishonen,

May I please have your opinion on this activity on New religious movement?

• Declaration of intention to unilaterally remove material without consensus.[14]

• About 20 minutes later, the deletion was performed.[15]

• My reversion.[16]

• New deletion of same material without consensus.[17]

Thanks. Tanaats 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Deletion of a sourced statement without consensus.[18] Tanaats 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Statement of reason for insisting on unilateral deletion.[19] Tanaats 01:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Tanaats: I'm really sorry, I've just been too busy, too many emergencies have been popping up, on-wiki and IRL. I've now asked an uninvolved admin to step up to the plate on this instead of me. You should be seeing or hearing from him round about 5 PM EST or so. Bishonen | talk 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Hey, no problem. This is turning into a long-term situation and patience is required. :) Thanks for your earlier participation and I look forward to hearing the opinions of the other admin. Tanaats 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the update

Hey Bish!! I know, haven't talk to you for so long. Apparently, David Levy is forcing me with a block to remove the joke banner. thoughts?--Certified.Gangsta 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I feel a little ridiculous warning you about 3RR vio, David, but are you aware that you've gone right up against the limit on Certified.gangsta's userpage? Please don't revert again. Bishonen | talk 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

The reversion of vandalism is exempt from the 3RR. —David Levy 03:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Right there behind you Bishonen... plus the improper block. (→Netscott) 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, Scott. David, you're mistaken about the application of that exemption. The reversion of something you've unilaterally and disputably decided you regard as vandalism is not exempt from the 3RR. ("Disputably", obviously,since it's being disputed all over ANI at this moment.) By no means. This is what is exempt according to the 3RR policy:

"Reverting simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking (this only applies to the most simple and obvious vandalism. For other vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)"

See how it doesn't fit? Italics in the original. Bishonen | talk 04:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Again, I don't understand why people are citing discussion that occurred after the fact as though it already had occurred. At that time, there was overwhelming consensus that these messages were harmful. So yes, I viewed the deliberate restoration of such a banner as something tantamount to simple and obvious vandalism. I'm sure that the user felt that his/her joke was funny and didn't seek to upset people, but someone adding nonsense to an article might feel the same way. The user was well aware of the fact that the banner's insertion was regarded as disruptive and barred via a guideline, and he/she chose to ignore these facts (as well as my warning, which he/she removed from his/her talk page).

Whether I was right or wrong, I honestly perceived this as a clear-cut case of deliberate disruption. —David Levy 09:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I honesty perceive this as a clear-cut abuse of administrative priviledges and deliberate userspace harassment.--Certified.Gangsta 09:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the words of the 3RR policy, I don't see that they leave much room for deciding that something—a joke banner—quite different from the examples they give of simple and obvious vandalism is "something tantamount to simple and obvious vandalism". On the same principle, even if you feel you have such strong consensus for a recently introduced "rule" that it's safe to dismiss all pleas and arguments on the other side, it wouldn't have hurt you any to try to understand where they were coming from—to listen rather than dismiss out of hand, to engage rather than assume that anybody with different opinions had to be out to harm the encyclopedia. If you'd taken opposing arguments into account, I don't think it would have been that hard to figure out what kind of reaction an actual block was likely to get on ANI. I'm saying this because from the way you responded to me, I didn't get any kind of feeling of being heard or listened to.) Bishonen | talk 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

1. I don't believe that the mere use of the joke banner constituted anything tantamount to simple vandalism. I believe that the repeated deliberate guideline violations (mostly via edits with no summaries, some of which were labeled "minor") and removal of a warning message did.

2. Again, I didn't "dismiss all pleas and arguments on the other side." Almost all of them arose after the fact. I have listened to them and repeatedly apologized for acting in a manner met with controversy (which obviously wasn't my intent). —David Levy 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On the matter in hand, looking at timestamps, it seems to me you had received a good deal of input by the time you reached my page—enough to give you pause before imperiously dismissing my 3RR concern. To introduce a note of doubt or self-reflexion, even. An acknowledgment of the possibility that I meant well and might have a point. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

I haven't dismissed your concerns. I simply disagree with you on this point. Not for a moment have I questioned your motives. —David Levy 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please help

I am having troubles with User:Piotrus on my talk page, with his insistence on keeping a warning - you stated in the past the this is not warranted. BTW, this user is up for a RfC presently. Thank you. Rarelibra 15:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've written a note to Piotrus. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

The user has failed to show me any diff that s/he has been warned about unsing obscenities in the future, so I feel my warning was current and correct. The next time that user uses obscenities we now have a ground for blocking (hopefully that will teach that person to behave in a civil manner instead). I don't care that much if s/he removes the warnings, it only reflects bad upon that person ability to deal with criticism. What I object to is blanking current debates, which makes it more difficult to continue meaningful discussion. However I consider the discussion closed (the user was warned, and failed to present any coherent argument in his/her defence).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As an admin, you are quite capable of doing the research as to being warned previously. All you seem to be doing is going on some kind of march to attempt to get me blocked. It won't work. You should be, instead, concentrating on the current RfC that you are the topic of for your various behaviours in the past (and present). Like the pot calling the kettle black. It wasn't a debate, mind you - it wasn't a blanking. It was acknowledgement without response, period. Next time use discretion before you go off on some tirade. Serious. Be very careful on your actions. Thank you. Rarelibra 18:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen - I don't mean to bother you. I really appreciate your assistance. The problem I have with User:Pmanderson is that he cannot remain respectful whenever he dislikes someone. If you look at this diff HERE, you'll see that he insinuates that I want to "lie to the reader". There was nowhere at all in my comments on this discussion a proposal to lie. In fact, my whole point was that we need to use the diatrics when using names (and redirect from non-diatric names) - a process that the workplace I am involved with does on a daily basis due to an international scope of work. I was also stating that a direct English translation of the name "Stanisław" is "Stanley" (like "Mark" from "Marek"). Yet user Pmanderson seems to be able to twist my words and attempt to slander me. This is what I wish to have stopped. I do not do the same with him, I expect the same respect in return. That is all. Rarelibra 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your banner

I'm going to start revert warring with you, and then I'm going to block you. Oh, maybe I'd better not. Bishzilla might eat me. Musical Linguist 23:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I keep her around for. And I hope you realize you could have been spending the time it took to block me improving the encyclopedia instead ? Bishonen | talk 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Are you implying that blocking you wouldn't be improving the encyclopaedia? Musical Linguist 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Block weenie Bishonen, great improvement! Look, is Muzzy lady! Oh, Muzzy, Muzzy... ! Bishzilla | grrrr! 00:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

:-) Regards, Ben Aveling 06:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Nice banner, I'm stealing it.--Certified.Gangsta 09:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You stage, get off the suck!

Boooo! This was a real nice, un-orange page once... ( I'm boycotting it forthwith! :( El_C 09:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)).

Don't think I won't do it! El_C 09:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh hunn--ee..! Bishonen | talk 09:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

You've even orange-ized my own words. The sheer tenacity, audacity, insolence, intransigence, et cetera! El_C 09:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. Shouldn't El C be red not orange? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd love one thanks!

Where do I sign up for the Swedish massage? (→Netscott) 17:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, on a slightly more serious note: would you take a look at this ANI post? Thanks. (→Netscott) 19:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Something useful did come out of all of that. I created Template:View right which is good to be able to go and just view a transcluded bit of a page. Click on the right and you'll see what I mean: (→Netscott) 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bork bork bork

I'm glad to hear that there are Jansonnists, because I was afraid that they were Jansenists 150 years after the suppression. Geogre 11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Janssonists, yep. Followers of Eric Jansson of Hälsingland. 1,500 of 'em—more than many a prophet! My redlink for Jansson isn't the only one; check out Bishop Hill, Illinois, which has a good short History section. ALoan, you're interested in writing stubs about Swedish pietists, aren't you? Big following! Colorful guy! "After repeated brushes with the law and with outraged local opinion, Eric Jansson departed for America in 1846, condemning his homeland to eternal damnation." (H. A Barton, A Folk Divided, 16).

Bishonen | talk 12:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I a guessing that you don't mean one of the three members of the Swedish cycling time trial team, who won the bronze medal in the at the 1928 Summer Olympics, do you? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

He did that too? Wow, versatile! Bishonen | talk 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Ahem. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, the link is blue! :-) I've owled it a little. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Interesting chappie - his resurrection was clearly somewhat delayed, if he only popped up for the 1928 Olympics. Almost as interesting as Carlo Gatti. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• The Oxon Dict. Christian Church doesn't register him, I'm afraid, so I'm powerless without going to the liberry to find more information. Speaking of people going off to Lethe's burbling stream, Bish has gone quiet lately. Geogre 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Lethe? Not at all, I was reading books. (By Virginia Woolf, yet. When I read books, I read books.) Er, so, did you look at the issues under "Deletions on New Religious Movements" above, and "Nonstop personal attacks??" below, like we talked about..? If they got overwhelmed by other concerns, don't worry. I've got time to deal with it now, and have warned the user. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

My wife, Mathra, and I are both afraid of Virginia Woolf. Not Woolf's books, but Woolf herself. Rocks in the pocket and all. Geogre and Mathra, we're called, and we just love to invite new people over for dinner. Geogre 12:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Alas, but my tangle with salmonella-infected peanut butter (first time in history), overwhelmed all else. Geogre 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Did anyone see this? There's a poll on IRC snuck in at the end. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Great. If "no IRC" pulls ahead, we'll hear how "polls are evil," and if "IRC is useful" pulls ahead, we'll hear how it's an integral part of Wikipedia. In other words, it's zero sum, no matter what. Geogre 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Houston do you read me?

"Stockholm, we've Had a Problem !". I think you are not penetrating the intergalactic airwaves, try and come through from the other side. Giano 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonstop personal attacks??

• Can something be done about all these nonstop violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks ??? In his last post, User:BabyDweezil seemingly attacked multiple editors within one breath!

1. Administrator's notice board, very inappropriate attacks on multiple editors
2. Inappropriate response to warnings ABOUT personal attacks on his talk page

Thanks for your time. Smee 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't believe in blocking for personal attacks. But when they rise to disruption and to a general poisoning of the climate on talkpages, it becomes something else. Did you see me warn him on his page?[20] Meanwhile, I wish you'd stop planting templates on him. It's frowned on to use the warning templates in that way. If you feel a need to warn or reproach him (personally, I wouldn't bother any more, if I were you), then please use regular human speech. And try to chill out, Smee. It looks a lot like BabyD is trying to get you aggravated (remember, "assume good faith" doesn't mean "I have to pretend I'm stupid"). Don't give him the pleasure. Bishonen | talk 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

It would be nice if at least one admin would judge my edits on their merits, instead of incessant speculations that I'm seeking some sort of thrill or persecuting anyone. I challenge you or any admin to conclude that less than 95% of my edits are well grounded. I explain the reasons, yet I am faced with obstinate, POV-minded editors who act as a bloc to filibuster and delay even the simplest, most obvious improvements to the articles. BabyDweezil 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand my role in this context. I purposely don't get into your content disputes. If I did, I would cease to be the right person to adjudicate behavior—to "admin" the articles, as Tanaats puts it. Incidentally, for somebody who incessantly accuses Smeelgova of "stalking", it's a little curious how you pop up on every page where I allude to something you're interested in, and make some perky comment. [21] That's classic stalking. On another note, may I ask why you're so careless of the BabyDweezil account? From comments on your talk, you don't seem to care if it gets blocked, and you seem quite uninterested when I tell you that you're headed for a community ban or for arbitration.[22] Is BabyDweezil a disposable identity? Bishonen | talk 23:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Maybe you could consider switching roles and take a shot at evaluating content (rather than, as you chose to do on the noticeboard, my mental health, since what appears as "behavior" cannot be judged with the least bit of accuracy in the absence of context. If you don't wish to, why not ask another admin to evaluate content? Seems lots of admins have opinions on behaviors, which they're all too happy to proffer at the drop of a hat, wam bam thank you mam. Looking down from WikiOlympus and pointing fingers is easy. As to my classic [23] stalking, since its obvious that some of you have taken it upon yourselves to not only complain incessantly about me, but to investimigate me (lotsa luck with that, and really, cc me the results) I like to keep informed about what's up if it concerns my account. Hate to be the last one to find out, y'know! BabyDweezil 00:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't noticed that plenty of admins are criticizing your way of adding (or, more commonly, deleting) content? See, again, the ANI discussion. And ChrisO. I don't quite see what your interest is in having me do it too. I won't be so crass as to suggest you would like it if I stopped "adminning" the articles you care about. My rhetorical mention of "projection" amounts to "evaluating your mental health" and playing the wikishrink, does it? You know, of all your witticisms, that bit actually makes me smile. (Slightly. From Olympus.) Bishonen | talk 00:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

No content means content, not childish complaints about how one edits content. There has been zero ADULT discussion on actual content, rather than the rules ofthe playground. And as I pointed out, ChrisO has a HUUUUUGE (big even) conflict of interest on Scientology related articles. It's like having Karl Rove jump in and admin the Dick Cheney article. BabyDweezil 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Formulating joke "new message" guidelines

Hello Bishonen, I invite you to join the discussion on crafting initial guidelines for the joke "new message" banners. Thanks. (→Netscott) 19:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What should we do

Hi,

I'm gathering proofs against User:Patchouli.User:Sa.vakilian/AFC1 How can we banned him forever?--Sa.vakilian 05:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi.The thing to do in my opinion is propose a community ban on WP:ANI. (Compare my recent post there.) Link prominently to the previous thread and the reactions that people registered there. Give the new post a heading that clearly states what it's about, and that makes it easy to notice for people who have an interest in the user—say "Community ban proposed against Patchouli" or something like that. See, LittleDan already said he thought a ban was appropriate, and I actually proposed a community ban, but the heading didn't say anything about a ban, so probably few people noticed it. You need to make your post easy to read and the points you make easy to grasp. Your evidence is good, but frankly, you have too much of it! (It'll be very useful if this is taken to arbitration, as seems pretty likely.) Only use the best of your links, and explain what you think they prove. Mention that LittleDan and others already suggested a ban. Me, I was just talking—I don't have any experience of the user—but LittleDan is important, so you might want to ask him to post his views directly after your proposal. Preferably a little more fully than he did before.

Advice for getting people interested in the issue:

• Be fair, mention if the user has some good points, or if there are any excuses for the way he behaves. Make it clear what you're proposing, but ask the readers for input and their views, rather than say "You have to ban him."
• Be brief. Agha Nader's original post in the previous thread is a good length, and is a good pattern for you altogether (except the header, which is unhelpful), with striking examples. Yours can be shorter, since you have a recent discussion to refer to.
• Don't talk about the various policies he's breaking. Administrators know what these policies are, and listing them only sounds formalistic. Instead go directly to what he's specifically done, and the amount of problems he causes.

Who should propose it? Absolutely not me, I'm ignorant. Not somebody who has edit warred a lot with Patchouli, or is any kind of extremist on the opposite side from him. Somebody knowledgeable. It sounds (from your evidence collection) like you would be a good person. So would Agha Nader, or LittleDan. It's not really important, the information and the way it's presented matters more than who it is. Finally, if there's not consensus for a community ban, I advise you to first have somebody previously uninvolved make a good-faith effort to reach out to the user, and then (assuming that fails, as seems only too likely) go directly to requesting arbitration. From the links already posted, I don't see the sense in wearing out everybody with formal mediation and/or an RFC which would only turn into a flameout anyway. Requesting arbitration isn't hard. Good luck, Bishonen | talk 13:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

What's your idea about making an entry in Wikipedia:Community noticeboard and redirect it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Can I put massages on talk page of other wikipedians who know Patchuli to come there and write their idea or it's WP:CANVASSING.--Sa.vakilian 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Critical analysis via bulldozer and cow catcher

I had to make a few changes to Venice Preserv'd. Because I don't "OWN" articles, I've been very laid back about things. It seems that someone wrote a paper on the play and had to insert its conclusions. I can so sense someone having a class read it with New Criticism and a sheaf of feminist perspectives. Anyway, if you look at the diff between my last and the previous version, you can see the stuff I cut. If there are legitimate points that I'm chopping off that can be made more appropriately, please feel free to put them in in a better way.

For my part, I'm not going to allow the idea that this is a misogynistic play to stand. My own view is that all the principals are in an ethical bind. None of these survive, because our society has changed to get rid of things like "honor," but ... oh, just see the diff. Geogre 11:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Hej Bish - just wanted to say a very belated thanks for this. Hope you didn't feel too deceived that the anon was me, editing incognito. And thanks for your note on my talk page the other day as well. Hope you've been well! Worldtraveller 14:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I'd forgotten about that, World. Not deceived at all, it was a good thing to do. Admins should do the Harun al-Rashid/Günter Walraff/anon IP routine more often. Good heavens, Walraff is a redlink! I can't believe it. OK, make that the Barbara Ehrenreich routine. I was sorry to be such a lone voice on ANI this time round. :-( I'm as baffled as you are at the idea of calling criticism of admin actions a personal attack. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Suggest to try Günther Wallraff, if it might please you, Most Noble Born Bishonen. Humbly, Swedophile 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Wow, a resurrection from 2004? Innaresting. I like the way you talk, Swedophile... very courteous, not to say courtly... hmmm, how about addressing me as "My Tallest", though ? I rather fancy that. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

User:WackadooXanadu

Could you please remove the reference of me "hating [his] guts" on his userpage. I removed it once because I took it as an insult for someone to judge my feeling towards them, which are not true by the way. Thanks! — Moe 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. I don't even care about the thread above that because it's my exact suspicions, but to make false claims is another. — Moe 01:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Gone. Now how about that Swedish massage? Bishonen | talk 01:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

LOL, did you get that massage, last chance from my talk page whenever I had it? I guess to be original you had to make it Swedish, huh? ;) — Moe 01:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a trap, don't fall for it. You get squished instead. Its like a horror movie. Its like... dead zombie chickens marching across your userpage! KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you *click for massage* ...Ahh! Should have listened to the Killer Chihuahua :/ — Moe 01:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Some idiot just blocked me

Avenge me, boys. AVENGE MEEE!! (I'm still boycotting this page, btw. This is just inhumanitarian aid) El_C 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've blocked the jerk! Bishonen | talk 03:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

I deserved that. El_C 04:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins get to have all the fun. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no, you can be blocked, too! Bishonen | talk 12:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Community ban

Can I put massages on talk page of other wikipedians who know Patchuli to come there and write their idea or it's WP:CANVASSING.--Sa.vakilian 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure it out, please give me a minute and I'll respond! Bishonen | talk 04:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

OK, I'm still not sure. You'd have to make sure it's a limited number of people—absolutely not more than, say, 5—7 people—and an extremely neutral message. Avoid any hint of what you'd want or expect them to say, just ask them in a very neutral way for input. The only point I feel doubt about is that it's supposed to be important to write to both people who agree with you and people who agree with your adversary. So, if Patchouli has any supporters, or people neutral on the issues, it's extremely important that you include those people. But if he doesn't, I'm honestly not sure what would be deemed acceptable. In my own opinion, though, it would hardly be reasonable to prevent you from messaging people for input in such a case. Go for it. I think it's ok, so feel free to blame me if anybody complains. Bishonen | talk 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Personal attacks starting up again?

1. DIFF 1
2. DIFF 2
3. obvious nonsense disruption, in violation of WP:POINT
4. 2nd time disrupting Eisenhower article
5. (Again)

These characterizations and assumptions about other editors is highly inappropriate. This follows a pattern of inappropriate behaviour that was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive202. Smee 22:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

LOL, and Smee isn't stalking me?? BabyDweezil 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP with your violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. This has been dealt with ad nauseam already. Smee 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Relax, man. It's annoying enough that you follow me around undoing my edits. The fact that you log and monitor all my edits and constantly "report" me, with bogus accusations of personal attacks, disruptions, "inappropriateness" the like and post my "record" everywhere you can is really, really creepy. I mean, really. BabyDweezil 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think the DIFFS above speak for themselves. Your behaviour, (in addition to the very language you are using now) is inappropriate and offensive, and a disruption to Wikipedia. Many other editors and Admins have stated as such. Smee 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Smee, please try not to rise to every bait. BabyD, please don't use words like "vindictive", and don't tell people how they "feel".[24] You are not in their heads, don't discuss how they feel. Discuss their edits, not their motives. This is the essence of the WP:NPA policy. Come on, you're always citing policy, I'm sure you know this. Just stop it. Meanwhile, since neither my wimpy reproaches nor previous ANI discussions nor shorter blocks seem to have made much impression (those edits to Dwight D. Eisenhower and L. Ron Hubbard mentioned above are truly ridiculous), I'm on my way to WP:ANI to propose a month's block. Feel free to weigh in, both of you. Bishonen | talk 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Cough, splutter

See here. Musical Linguist 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Returning a favor

Since you helped me out, I noticed this List of Danish Americans while doing my usual "random article" surfing. I had seen the thing in your sandbox, and the first paragraph of this seemed to tie in, indirectly. Are other Scandinavians "disappearing" as quickly? Was there something peculiar about Danes that Swedes wouldn't have shared? Would it have to do with Danish history and its subjugation? Utgard Loki 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a Danish.

Thanks! The others aren't disappearing at all, they're burgeoning! This professor writes about the cohesiveness of Swedish-Americans, and it seems the cultural activities of the third- or fourth-generation American Swedes are becoming more Swedish. More Swedish than mine, for sure. In Minnesota, they apparently revel in (fake) immemorial Swedish customs like Sankta Lucia, the kräftskiva, the going bork bork bork. All pretty much invented out of whole cloth in the late 19th century—customs the first-generation emigrants had never heard of. People are funny, aren't they? As for the Danes integrating better and disappearing more, I guess that's to do with less religious persecution in the Old Country, so a less embattled type of immigrant. Something like that. Have a Danish. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

If you could spare the time -

- would you mind glancing over my little essay? I would appreciate your opinion very much. Comments welcome at the talk page. Best regards (and my compliments to foo-zilla should you happen to meet him/her/it), Kosebamse 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oooooh, Wikipedia will get you for saying that! Geogre 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

bishonen diacritic

Hi. All good-natured fun on AN/I aside, is there any reason that you don't have the diacritic in "bishonen" on your user page? I was going to change it but then figured that it might be intentional for legacy compatibility? Later. --Justanother 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant as the primary spelling so it bypasses the redirect. --Justanother 03:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Lëgäcy cömpætæbility? Primäry? I don't understand what you're talking about, sorry. Please don't make changes to my userpage. I wasn't trying to be funny on ANI. If I had been, I would have mentioned your laughable 3RR repørt of Smëë. Bischånen 11:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

"In Ankh Morpork, we do not hold with any letters with dots over them that might fall over and cause accidental punctuation." -- or something like that. Geogre 12:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Lancre, I believe - "But Lancre people had never got the hang of accents and certainly didn't agree with trying to balance two dots on another letter, where they'd only roll off and cause unnecessary punctuation." (see Überwald). Ankh-Morpork people "considered that spelling was sort of an optional extra. They believed in it in the same way that they believed in punctuation; it didn't matter where you put it, so long as it was there."[25] -- ÄŁøάñ (τâĺж) 14:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not say "funny". I said "fun". I hope that you are having fun. That is kinda the whole idea here, isn't it? When you click on the wiki-link for "bishonen" on your user page, it goes to redirect and I was wondering if you would not like that changed. No big deal. Since when is it "laughable" to report an edit-warrior for 4RR after repeated warnings ( wanna see the warnings?) Nice ASCII work. --Justanother 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not ASCII work, it's the natural behavior of my not-so-anglophone keyboard. I just usually keep it on a short leash. It's laughable since the time you daintily picked out Smeelgova's limited reverts from the surrounding ocean of reverts by BabyD.[26] and reported Smeelgova. I especially liked your subsequent call on ANI for editors and admins to make a better effort to see that all are treated fairly. You must have had fun writing that. BTW, sorry you feel muzzled by me pointing out that you had written half the thread, posted eight times, and were boring readers silly. Those are just facts, you know. Not like saying I'm "railroading", for example. I wonder what my interest in getting BD blocked is supposed to be. When I say I wonder, I mean I'm wondering inside my head. It's not a request for more rhetoric. (OMG censorship again.) Bishonen | talk 14:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

OK, no rhetoric. You have your perceptions and your opinions and your motives and I have mine. At most times, I imagine, they probably and happily coincide (not to imply that you or I particularly care about that). Obviously, they do not here. I really was curious about the diacritic. Don't worry about the censorship on AN/I. I have already made my points and if there is something else I need to say you can rest assured that I will say it despite (what I take as) any veiled threats of sanction for "disrupting ANI". --Justanother 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor FYI

• Since BD deleted my reply from his talk-page, which he has every right to do, here it is:

Per Bishonen's sage advice: Smee, please try not to rise to every bait. Therefore, I will not. Smee 21:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

A belated thank for your comments in the arbcom case Sathya Sai Baba 2

I am frustrated that the arbcom has not answered a request for clarification since Sept 2006. An unanswered question regarding extrnal linking in the case of Robert Priddy triggered an edit war that led to this second arbcom case. It seems that the arbcom prefers to ban contributors who ask difficult questions to them, instead of answering the questions. Andries 08:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen,

And I'm very pleased to meet you! - Sorry to beg some of your time, but I've come to you to ask for some advice. I have what i consider serious concerns about essjay's conduct, and am upset with the way my concerns are being handled.

Brief rundown is that essjay lied on his userpage for ages about his qualifications - claiming to be a tenured professor, and hold the following degrees;

• Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.)
• Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.)
• Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.)
• Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD)

I understand that some see this as no big deal (but it is a big deal to me). What i thought was far more serious was that he repeated these lies to the New Yorker, and allowed a story to be published [27] which I feel directly bolsters wiki's reputation based on his fictional qualifications. I'm really concerned that without recognising this behaviour as a mistake at some point this could do serious damage to wikipedia's reputation, essjay being such a high powered user - this level of dishonesty is just plain wrong.

He has justified what he refers to as disinformation here [28] - and basically repeated this justification when I raised it on his talk page here [29] - leaving aside the fact that I think essjay is needlessly mentioning stalking, police matters and harrasment (how could wiki suddenly be so safe now?), I don't feel that he's responded at all appropriately to the issues. He's made it clear now he doesn't want to talk about it... [30]

I don't like the idea of someone who thinks this is not important having so much power. As you can see, I've become quite involved in this issue - perhaps I see it as so serious because I'm up so close - if it's no big deal, then I should let it lie, but I feel sure there's a seed of something quite important. I've sent you an email too..... Purples 02:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Purples. I'll take a look and talk with some people and get back to you. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 13:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

I have my usual overly-complicated view, which I've e-mailed you, Bish. Geogre 15:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's funny - I have a theory too Giano 15:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm on three sides of the fence. Geogre 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (Beat that!)

Oh Geogre - it is far better to tunnel underneath the fence - who knows what one finds when one starts digging! Giano 15:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (et tu)

On an entirely unrelated matter (and I mean that sincerely; this is not code or insinuation), I have created a new award on my talk page. Geogre 18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm feeling cold and shivery, very cold, we have a superstition in deepest Sicily, never let your name be carved on a stone before the appointed time. Oh hell it has my name - I can feel a sore throat coming on - you must all pray for my repose. Giano 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That headstone doesn't have your name on it, unless the "Giano Affair" was about Giano, which it wasn't. Everyone knows that. Geogre 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh but do they? Poor dear Jimbo is there too - I just don't like it - we are doomed. Giano 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pass the doilies, please

Hi. I can use a bit of advice here, please. Do you think that this bit by User:Antaeus Feldspar constitutes disruption or abuse of a noticeboard worth bringing up on AN/I. I really do not want to be "dainty" here (more on that in a sec). I have a pretty thick skin and am very used to being attacked on the Scientology Series talk pages. I really don't mind it much as it gives me the rare opportunity to crack extremely wise and that is not something I do in real life or in other areas here. Lately, though, this crap has been spilling over onto admin noticeboards. There was my dainty 5RR with Smee and Tanaats try there (which he, to his credit, had the good sense to remove after I asked him to), then Orsini and Anteaus on your AN/I on BD, and now this one. Those are the recent ones. Basically, it is taking a noticeboard case and turning it into "get Justanother" on the hope that some admin will buy into their "stuff". This type of activity is off-topic anywhere (if they have a case let them just bring it) but seems especially egregious on the noticeboards. I mean, does Antaeus really think an editor/admin is going to want to jump into that to figure out and answer whatever on-point question is in there? I already figured out (finally) what his argument was and responded to it. I really wish these guys would stop it already and that is my only desired outcome. As regards "dainty". Yes, sure. But I think BD was already well "under control" and Smee was running over my valid edits at the same time in his edit-warring. Smee has said that he will make the necessary adjustments to his editing style and I have made efforts to patch things up between he and I. Thanks for your input on this Antaeus thing, I respect it. --Justanother 16:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG. I've read through the BLP noticeboard thread once and am none the wiser. Frankly I'm stupider. Antaeus Feldspar's posts are rather long and complicated; yours are dreadfully long and complicated. You'll have to apply your own unaided judgement as to whether to take it to ANI, because I can't even tell what's going on. But if you do, consider this: I react with incomprehension and frustration. So does William Thweatt [31]. That's two out of two. There are currently no other comments. What kind of response do you think you'll get if you write like that on ANI, where the competition for admins' attention is so fierce? People are put off by long paragraphs, so please be brief; people don't know the background, so please explain it. These two suggestions are admittedly in dynamic tension with each other. But still. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, thanks for the advice. And I do apologize for sticking your nose in that. Though I do object (in good-natured manner) to your claiming that I was more long-winded than Antaeus. I broke out the calculator and, prior to Mr. Thweatt, Antaeus was at 56.3% and me at a "mere" 43.7%, but there were just the two of us (smile). And I certainly hope I was more entertaining (but maybe not). My problem is that I have been attacked since I got here in August 2006, just because I am a Scientologist and, while it has been an educational experience and "trial by fire", I am pretty much done now with being attacked, especially as it is seeping over to the notice boards and I imagine that I will be using them to actually get some help from experienced editors like Mr. Thweatt (and yourself) and I am tired of the character assassination employed against me (such as Orsini's that I am a troll and an OSA stooge). If I do decide to pursue it I will be sure to give my sardonic rhetoric a rest. Which I am quite capable of doing. --Justanother 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did the best I could and posted it to AN/I. Your comments, of course, are welcome. Thanks --Justanother 05:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dang, despite my best efforts some rhetoric crept in to my posting on AN/I but I have removed it. "Old habits die hard." --Justanother 13:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Coding

Just as you've done it. With the refs spelled out, it's a cinch. Marskell 13:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You've merged my notes, I see. No big deal, but I thought those sentences deserved separate citing, as the theatre company history is quite esoteric knowledge. The details about the "adventurers" and about the actors' cooperative are only available in Milhous' book as far as I know, and are on a whole different level from the surrounding paragraph about how the 1690s drama was different from the 1670s, which is 100% known and assented to by everybody who's written on the drama in the past 400 years, and doesn't deserve any citing at all. Milhous lays out two separate things, though connected: the early-robber-baron-raw-capitalism that gutted the company (pp. 37—43), and the (unique, startling) reaction of the actors, who fought back by setting up their own cooperative and revitalizing London theatre life (51—68). Bishonen | talk 14:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

To come down on the other side of our long debate, I was worried two separate cites in adjoining sentences might encourage the every two lines problem. While I do ask for sources at times, I'm certainly not in that camp. What about summation in the cite, briefly detailing what you've just said above and pointing to the page numbers? Marskell 14:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done so. Marskell 18:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your thoughts at User talk:Kosebamse/Wikipedia is not a sentient being; a little further discussion is on that page. Always delighted to hear from you, Kosebamse 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

here we go....

i think the ethics stuff is beginning to get noticed.... [32] - I gather the New Yorker has also published a correction (it's quoted in that blog..). The fact that essjay was to some degree representing wikpedia when talking to the New Yorker is what causes the damage..... just thought i'd let you know... Purples 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And isn't this the same user who was just appointed to ArbCom by the direct order of Jimbo skipping a step of obtaining community's feedback on that while users who passed the voting with >70% threshold were readily available? Where is this all going? --Irpen 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(Come on, Irpen, please hold the rhetorical questions—what good do you think they're going to do?) Very interesting, Purples. It certainly vindicates you, though I don't suppose it makes you happy. :-( Anyway, I hope the users who piled on you for "trolling" feel at least slightly foolish, when or if they see that article. Bishonen | talk 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually I understand where they're coming from - they respect essjay enormously, and want to help 'defend' him - that's cool, just a little misguided. All i really want to do is engage the chap at the centre of it all. Purples 01:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is a project filled with paper dolls. These paper dolls ... people can think either that they represent a person or that they are paper dolls in their own right. It bugs me when anyone tries to embue his or her creature with aspects of a real person. I do not want to have this one say that it has rights and abilities because the person manipulating it has gotten a Ph.D. in web comics, and I do not want to have that one say that it has extra powers because the person manipulating it was a lawyer or judge. Any time that happens, I think the fundamental basis of Wikipedia is being broken. We're either anonymous editors, or we are not, and I loathe the idea of trying to have it both ways. When a person not only tries to make the fiction of the person on Wikipedia refer to the human fictionalizer, but also lets the paper doll step out of the book and equal the person, I'm doubly irritated.

It's easy for me to ignore LordViperScropion's claims to being Brad Pitt. However, when he tries to say that Brad Pitt has the qualities of the avatar and the avatar the qualities of the actor, it's a special kind of offense. If Essjay said he were the Pope, I'd say that means nothing, because all the identities here are presumed to be fiction, but if he says he's the Pope and therefore is the leader of all Catholics who edit Wikipedia, he's being a jerk. If he then goes on to a real world interview as the Pope, it's probably at the level of fraud, at least intellectual fraud.

There is no way to explain to the folks of The New Yorker how the fictions of Wikipedia appeal to those carrying particularly large social wounds, how the most lofty personalities as personalities are often those whose frustrations at reality are greatest, how the least spectacular personalities are often those who really have accomplishments. Geogre 11:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)