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)

In case you are interested User_talk:Charles_Matthews#Banning_an_editor_from_an_article_whose_edits_are_described_as_responsible. Andries 18:15, 1 March 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)

I thought i'd copy below a message that i received (hope that's not considered rude...) because Geogre and Ancheta seem to me to have the deepest understanding of the bigger wiki issues, and I thank you both for your insights....

It's all kicking off at Jimbo's talk page now, so I think I'll take a step back. I do think it's a shame that essjay didn't just take the opportunity to put a little correction on the record.... ho hum....

Purples 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What worries me is that these are not creatures who deceive to survive, but rather that there is a deception (the electronic self) that is particularly attractive to those who have the greatest deficit in their feelings. I don't want to care about the Wound and the Bow, as it were, don't want to care about this, either way, because only the product matters. If a forger makes a Da Vinci, I'm ok with owning it, so long as I don't pass it off as a Da Vinci: it has all the pleasures of the creation and lacks only the originality. What bothers me is that I think we've been handed a Summa Theologica written by Tommy A. Quines and asked to treat it as by Thomas Aquinas. The game is unequal. George has told Martha that Sonny Jim was killed. The illusion is shattered by trying to take it out of the social contract that licensed it (the deceit that is electronic self). Geogre 02:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

... i think this is where realism comes in. We should not be surprised when people behave unethically, or when they find it hard to understand why others think they're wrong. Or to put it another way, everybody lies. Just a fact of life. I think your point about having it both ways here is very important though - wikipedia seems to engage needy people hugely, who then go through a cycle of feeling excited, empowered, frustrated then embittered - then wipe the slate clean and start again. The clutter talk of wiki-love and making the world a better place doesn't help.

I'm worried that people with serious, real life issues, both acute and chronic come here, get confused about their relationship to their computer screens, and end up getting hurt. There's a argument going on about clerks over at checkuser at the moment - it seems to me that someone has handed out badges, which become badges of first wiki, then self-esteem generally. Of course it's upsetting when someone suggests that your self-esteem is unneccessary - except it's not your self-esteem, it's only an imaginary badge. People handing out the badges bear some responsibility.

To bring these abstractions back to the nitty-gritty, essjay should simply stand down from his arb com, checkuser and oversight responsibilities, put an apology on the record and get on with everything he enjoys around here. If he finds this terribly hard, he should ask himself why....

Purples 03:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"clutter talk of wiki-love"? As you saying that Wikipedians need not try to be nice to each other?

No-one ever gives me a badge. I still have the cuddy rhino, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, we should all be nice to each other - I just find some users a bit zealous beyond reason in their wiki-faith. I'm trying to make a joke about a horn here, but you'll have to figure one out for yourselves..... ps. it's sad to see this thing explode - signal to noise ratio is not good. happy days all! - Purples 06:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

idealism, naturalism, empiricism, and realism (a message from Ancheta to Purples....)

(please see above para... and delete with apologies if considered clutter....)

P., I reply with a philosophical answer, which you may take as you please.

There is a beautiful street in my neighborhood, a quiet one, nicely proportioned, of just the right width and length, with mature trees, nice-looking houses, children who play on its lawns, and neighbors. Once, when driving slowly along it (so as not to alarm the children) I saw a couple speaking to each other. The woman, whom I believe to be the wife, was standing on a large rock, that she might tower over the man, and she appeared to be gesturing in a power-demanding way to the man. This disturbed me, as I have the illusion that those who live on that street have wonderful lives. Clearly, I have an ideal, about that street and life, which rests in my heart.

Although I have these ideals, the love of Nature and all its power lies in my heart as well, so that I understand that the mystery and beauty inherent in N. sometimes has no room for the demands of Man. Thus there are beings in Nature who deceive simply to survive, and their lives are testament to a Nature who lets them be. They exist and survive.

I was trained to respect empiricism because that is at the root of the power of our civilization, but realism probably enjoys a better-founded set of concepts. So I believe that your principled outrage at a being who has deceived, survived, and who has even found a better gig in his existence, may be a stage in the process of

Coping with Grief and Loss -- Common reactions. -- Elizabeth Kubler-Ross

1. Denial/shock It can't be
2. Anger toward the person, situation or self
3. Guilt - If only ...
4. Depression, Loneliness, Facing death, etc.
5. Relief
6. Hope
7. Return

So the outing of _ has me personally at #4. But I expect my feelings will transmute. I admit to reacting with #1. I do not feel a need to forgive, because I never felt #2. --Ancheta Wis 18:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And the street to which I referred above might be taken as a metaphor for Wikipedia. My references to Nature and Reality stand on their own.

Better to say nothing that to lie, I should have thought - it is not as if anything needed to be said in the first place. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion (and anyone elses)

On your screen on which version is the lettering of the key cleare this [33] or this [34] - i wish I knew how to do these things properly! Giano 08:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They're both rather indistinct for me. Maybe Bunchofgrapes can fix it up? Bishonen | talk 13:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I'd give it a shot if I could get a version of the image without any of the letters. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2007

(UTC)

Sorry I no longer have one, I left it in Sic last week <sigh> <gulp> <shit>. Can you see the yellow letters OK though? Perhaps I could draw one of my own plans, but they take forever and I always lose my temper with the computer doing them Giano 21:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The yellow letters are somewhat better than the red for me <groan> <fuck> Bishonen | talk 00:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Giano, I've got autoCAD and draw buildings for a living - why don't you scribble what you're after on the back of fag packet, scan it and send it over? --Joopercoopers 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My problem <sigh> is that I can't draw, I have a house non-professional drawing package (see Belton House & Buckingham Palace etc.) but I need a plan to work from, as I immagine do you Joopers, and there is non to be found. It is such a big complicated evolution of a place it needs something like that picture to refer to, and I have left that picture in a book in Sicily, so grapes can't have a go either <double shit>, and only have the edited one on my computer. I might try and draw a plan from the picture - just as a reference guide, the yellow numerals do look clearer though than the red - just Giano 10:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sops and frumenty for all!

At long last, the long-overdue nomination of medieval cuisine as an FAC is under way. You are invited to grab your fill of potage, quince pie, a subtlety worthy of a pope, and all the beer you can drink! Oh, and don't forget to make a few comments while you're digging in...

Peter ^Isotalo 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh ho, very tempting to go oppose you for being under-referenced, I must say! But I'm too disenchanted with FAC, it's gotten about as unpleasant as #wikipedia-en-admins the last time I looked in there (long time ago). You can see me and Giano and Geogre bitchin' and moanin' about FAC and FAR on Giano's talk, if you're foolish enough to want to ruin your appetite. Better just pass the frumenty please! Bishonen | talk 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I noticed the three of you being tarter than a bucket of vinegar. Just don't let them spoil all your fun... Deep down, I'm quite the idealist, and I'm going to see if I can't convince the footnote counters that the minimum amount of citations for an FA isn't quite that rigid. Wish me luck!

Peter ^Isotalo 09:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! I don't have time to give it a proper read right now, but I am sure I will be supporting it just as soon as I have. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

AN:I Comment

Hey. Just wanted to apologize again more personally for that accusation on AN:I. It's been a rough coupla months on-wiki and off, and I guess I've been snapping a little. I don't remember who it was I was thinking of, but it was a prominent administrator, and they said they were 'disgusted' by my conduct, and that they would 'gladly recommend my DeSysoping to the ArbCom personally'. Not the most pleasant thing in the world to hear. I remember our interactions now on the topic of another bothersome user, and I apologize for mistaking you for someone else. Luckily, I've put myself on Administrative 'light duty' for the next term or two to get a nice, cleansing break from all of the warring. No harm done? --InShaneee 06:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all, InShaneee. Of course not. I remember two separate bothersome users we've had dealings with together... one too smart for his own good and the other, er, just the opposite—I don't know if those descriptions are enough for you to recall the people! What's light duty--no blocking? I took myself off admin duty altogether once, all the buttons, outraged that one of our best admins had been de-adminned from on high, most unfairly as I thought. That turned out to be a fine opportunity to write a full-scale article, for once. Hope you return refreshed after the light duty! It is only a website, after all. Best, Bishonen | talk 12:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

For me, 'light duty' is simply not getting into any pre-existing disputes...and by that, I mean distancing myself from the various Kurd/Turk debates. There's still a lot that needs to be done there, but I know another admin has stepped in for the time being, so I feel a little more comfortable letting it go for a time. Currently? I'm rediscovering my love of New Page Patrol :) . And hey, good to see you're turned your outrage into opportunity. This is just a website, but I think the reason we're all here is because we know it can be more than that. Happy editing. --InShaneee 17:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

The new Giano, with biretta.

I hace a feeling Beretta is not the right spelling for my new accoutrement - hang on I'll look Giano 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah here we are biretta Giano 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How about tiara? Bishonen | talk 23:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

One step at a time my child Giano 23:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG, he has a Beretta! Clearly that's part of the Sicilian haircut! Geogre 13:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What else does a Sicilian keep in his daity red handbag? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A packet of Marlboro lights Giano 12:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

probably some lippy too - cardinal red naturally.--Alf ^melmac 12:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Very strange, though. edward (buckner) 07:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouch... don't say that. I thought my argument was real convincing. It makes me a little nervous if you don't, of all people! Mind you, I'm quite resigned to waking up and finding myself desysopped. I'm getting a bit pissed off by what goes on in this place. Bishonen | talk 07:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

No, I meant the whole thing was very strange. Your argument was fine. I've been here 4 years in June, and nothing like this, ever. Best, and thanks again. I'm more upset by WorldTraveller. Very hard to find good editors. edward (buckner) 10:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an issue that won't die, too -- not WT, but the whole "you called me 'wrong,' which is clearly a personal attack." It's very difficult for people to understand that we should not insult people, but blocking is a type of insult. Geogre 12:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Favour requested

Hi, Bishonen. I'm posting stuff at Wikipedia when I really need to be writing my paper. In order to reduce the temptation for me to get involved, would you do me a favour and add User talk:GordonWatts to your watchlist. You'll remember Gordon's incredibly ill-judged self nomination for adminship over a year ago, and actually I'm turning to you mainly because you opposed him at the time, and were challenged lengthily, so you know what he's like, and couldn't be accused of unduly favouring him, but at the same time, I know you have a strong sense of allowing blocked users some dignity.

Gordon is a well-meaning editor, who hasn't a clue how to get along with people who disagree with him, and doesn't make the effort to try to get along with them. He posts hundreds of words, often in different colours to draw attention to them. And he has to argue on every little point. However, his article edits are often helpful, improving word flow, correcting inaccuracies (whether Terri Schiavo was in a hospice or a hospital on a certain date), fixing spelling errors, etc. Unfortunately, he has tried very hard to get links to his own websites put in to the article, and got upset at the opposition, which included a lot of completely unnecessary rudeness and belittling. A community ban was sought, and he argued with everyone, even those who were trying to help him, and posted thousands of words, getting quite disruptive, and lost a lot of the support that he originally had. The ban vote was closed incorrectly, as the community had mostly said either that he couldn't go near anything to do with Terri Schiavo, or that he could edit the Schiavo articles but only post once a day on the Schiavo talk pages. He was told that he couldn't edit the articles, and could post once a day on the talk pages — something which nobody had voted for. He then filed an arbitration case against all the people who had voted against him, and started arguing and wiki-lawyering with the arbitrators. Then he appealed to Jimbo, and was blocked indefinitely for disruption. There was some very bad-taste gloating.[35] [36]

The indefinite block was reduced to a month, but he's still able to edit his talk page, and is still reacting there. He's in danger of being permanently blocked if he mentions his links again, and I don't actually think he'll do it if nobody provokes him by telling him that they're not suitable. He has accepted that the consensus is that he may not add them to articles, and in any case, he doesn't have any greater history of edit warring than other people on the Terri Schiavo article. However, I'm worried that he's going to respond to posts where people tell him that he's not to mention his links, and that it may be used against him to make the block permanent.

In case you're interested, there's discussion here and here. There's also a longish post from me here, which is cross-posted from TenOfAllTrades's talk page. Don't feel under any obligation to wade through any of it, though, as I'm not asking you to unblock Gordon or to "vote" in any discussion. All I'm asking is that you'd keep an eye on his talk page, and discourage people from posting anything that will make him feel he has to respond. (And poor Gordon feels he has to respond to everything!) If people keep up the arguments on his talk page, he'll argue back, saying why they're wrong to say he can't talk about his links, and then it's quite likely that someone will block him for talking about them. But if everyone leaves him alone, and stops mentioning his links even on other pages that he watches, there's a reasonable chance that he'll stop mentioning them. He has already said he'll stop, but he's just not able to not repond when someone argues with him. I've seen you dealing quite kindly and tactfully with people who had trouble "letting go" before. I think I'll ask GTBacchus to watch that talk page as well. I'm really not asking for any action: this could be one of the cases where doing nothing is the best possible solution. I'd just like to think that a few people who are not interested in trampling on people's dignity would be watching his page. Thanks. Musical Linguist 15:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I am starting the think that my early archiving[37][38] of our previous discussion gave the impression of a dismissal of your views. It was not my intent to dismiss your concerns.

Directly before this dispute, I decided to take a wikibreak due unrelated issues. My intent was to keep my talk page clear. I gave the edit summary to indicate that I was archiving it and that it was being addressed on WP:ANI. I was not trying to snub you, and I am sorry if that is how it came across.

My wikibreak is not related to this issue, rather I am making an exception to my wikibreak to deal with it. No hard feelings, we can disagree, but we need to remember that we are both working towards what we think is best for Wikipedia. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, I hear that cannibis can really fuck with your wits. Could that be the problem here? Bishonen clearly doesn't want you harassing her here. Your pre-archiving post shows what you thought of "her concerns", or as you so delicately put it in all your no-NPA fervor, "this shit". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, grapes, I was simply attempting to apologize and make my motives clear. People don't smoke pot and go all crazy, I don't know where you have done your research, but that is way out there in left field. My pre-archiving has been explained, and I thank you not to attribute motives to me like that. I have received a lot of hostility, and I have myself been a little uncivil, I was attempting to apologize for that.

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't think it is in line with my motives of easing any hard feelings that may of accumulated. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I see your apology hidden in there, where you're sorry if Bishonen misinterpreted your comments. Very big of you. (1) Stop blocking people, you don't have enough awareness of your surroundings to do it safely. (2) Go away, stop posting here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just been marveling at the filter that turns, "You've done the wrong thing. The policy does not allow that kind of action" into "You are completely correct, and everyone who counts is with you." I know there are things that can do that, but I've never ingested any. Geogre 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Peace man! Giano 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of BabyDweezil

Bish, as you have experience of this user, would you mind commenting on the indefinite block? Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, what is the new policy on Wikipedia:Community noticeboard versus Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? Thanks for your time. Smee 20:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Sorry it wasn't clear. Proposed community bans go on WP:CN now, as being the business of the community, and not specifically of admins.[39] If I've got it right, community bans are one of the main purposes, or the main purpose, of the Community noticeboard — what it was created for. Bishonen | talk 20:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Thank you. Smee 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

BD Move

Hi. My oppose seemed to have gotten lost in the move - would you mind fixing that? Thanks. --Justanother 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I see now. Thanks --Justanother 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you have a word

Hi Bish, Sorry to trouble you with this, but would you mind having a word with Certified.Gangsta? He's repeatedly trying to add an unsourced and disputed claim into Michelle Marsh (model), he's accused me and another editor of stalking when we've reverted him, and he is going around making edits to the effect that the Taiwanese aren't ethnically Chinese on all sorts of pages. It's gotten to the stage where more of his edits are reverted than kept, and by a wide range of editors. He's sticking to the letter of 3RR, but not the spirit. I don't think he's deliberately trolling, but the end effect is still disruptive. For his sake, can you have a talk to him? Thanks, Ben Aveling 21:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to, I've got his page watchlisted. It's just everybody at the same time... I mean, Gordon... yikes. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Gordon, Essjay, and less publicly but more ironically, there's been a slightly nasty stoush happening in one part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Kindness Campaign. Sigh. Thanks. I owe you one, another one. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you don't — not yet at least — I wrote a note for CG, but lost momentum when I checked his latest contribs — he seems to have stopped the Michelle Marsh thing cold, presumably in response to Nandesuka's message. That would be nice. I'll take another look tomorrow. Yaaaawn... Bishonen | talk 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Hey Bishy, how's it going?? Sorry about that Michelle March episode, I did a quick google search and hopefully it will be resolved. As for the Taiwan vs. China situation, enough had been said about that. On a side note, I was hoping you can get in touch with Ben and help resolve our differences. I mean, no offense, but he seems a lil hostile toward me ever since we decided to block Guardian Tiger. Thankz :)--Certified.Gangsta 05:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Gangsta, I hear you're a boob man! Seriously, this ... what a sight. I'm glad to hear that's all over. And it's good to see you around. People are leaving your Bishzilla banner alone, I trust. But, er... I hope you realize what horrors the banner link can lead your unsuspecting visitors into? Did you, in fact... <gulp> ... did you CLICK on it, CG...? Best not, believe me. Bishonen | talk 08:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

hahaha you're hilarious, bish. Btw can you blcok User:LionheartX since he is obviously a sock of you-know-who.--Certified.Gangsta 02:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I always thought this kind of sockpuppetry is always block on sight. (ban-evasion, WP:POINT) It seems like you're not interested in getting involve. Never mind then. I guess I'll have to go through the same painful process everytime :(.--Certified.Gangsta 01:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bish, Bish, Bish...help me!--Certified.Gangsta 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC minor formatting

• Could you maybe help User:Anynobody with some minor formatting/procedural issues at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anynobody and Justanother? I am not entirely familiar with the RFC formatting and procedure, as a specific RFC to users and not articles. Thank you for your time. Smee 00:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't blame you. It's quite misleading that user RFCs and article RFCs even share a name, as they function and are formatted quite differently. The most important thing about user RFCs is right at the top of the template: there must be a co-signer of the RFC, somebody who has attempted (independently of Anynobody) to resolve the issues with JA. Both Anynobody and the other editor must sign, and provide evidence of their efforts to resolve the problem within 48 hours of creating the RFC. Evidence means diffs. Everything else can pretty much wait, but the 48-hour thing is obligatory, and if it's not complied with, the RFC is highly likely to be deleted as soon as the 48 hours are up.

What I'd prefer to do is move the page into Anynobody's own space, in other words give it a name of the form User:Anynobody/Requests for comment/Justanother; stop the people who have already been asked to comment; move it back into Wikipedia space later, when it's a bit more ready to meet the world; and start those 48 hours then instead of now. OK? Then I could give some help and advice tomorrow, as I'm about to go to bed right now. (Such is my timezone.) If you reply now—right now—I can move the page; if not, please confer with A and move it yourself if you know how (it's easy), or ask any experienced user. For instance one of the freaks that hang out at this page of mine. And don't list it on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct yet! Bishonen | talk 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Did not get to your comment early enough, but added myself as a party and some evidence. Let myself or User:Anynobody know how it looks/what should be done at this point... Also, what is the best way to notify previously involved parties about the existence of the page in a neutral manner? Smee 16:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Well... I'm actually a little frustrated that you asked my advice and then ignored it. Changing the page into a userpage until it's ready is the way to go IMO, especially because then there'll be time to deal properly with the "dispute resolution" thing. Changing it into a userpage can be done any time as long as nobody has commented, after that it'll be too late. But never mind, this is what to do with an RFC that's already in Wikipedia space (=has a name beginning with "Wikipedia"):

• The name of the page should be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother. This is standard, and Anynobody, who's making the request, isn't supposed to be in the title.
• The page must be listed and linked on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.
• About notifying people, that's a little delicate, indeed. The only person who must be notified, and perhaps the only one who should be, is Justanother. If you want to spread the news, you obviously have to be careful not to simply notify people who have issues with Justanother. Not sure what you mean by "previously involved". Involved in what? Anynobody seems to be asking for comments on the way the two of them have been interacting—how is anybody else involved in that?
• The links at "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" are no good, to put it brutally. Posting warning templates on JA's page certainly doesn't qualify as attempted dispute resolution. (Didn't I tell you once that it was frowned on?) Dispute resolution means a bona fide attempt at reaching out, and I think you may be too upset with JA to be the best person for it. Suggestion: try asking Jossi, who knows the ropes, to contact JA and try to talk with him about Anynobody's concerns. (Yes, I know there's little time for that... people do tend to run short of time at this point. The way it's looking now, practically any admin will delete the page after 48 hours, if JA requests it.) A technical point, also: the top 3 links under "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" don't work, and I think there are some more on the page that don't. You need html links for talkpage sections, and you need permanent links, that'll still point to the same section after the page itself is archived or whatever. And, as the instructions say, linking to a whole page isn't useful. I can easily format the links so they work right if you like (just ask), but you do need to have better dispute resolution to point to.
• I don't think Anynobody should put his reason for making the request on the talkpage, it should be on the main page. Under "Statement of the dispute", perhaps, or "Description". (It's a very nice explanation—it's good to see a RFC that's not full of acrimony and it's-all-his-fault —but it would be even better if it was a little shorter.)
• Finally, I'm sorry it's such a bureaucratic nightmare. You probably weren't expecting that. User RFC's are horrible timesinks. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

My apologies.

• Well... I'm actually a little frustrated that you asked my advice and then ignored it. - Please understand that I had started to add to the RFC, upon request from User:Anynobody, before I had seen your suggestions, so I did not "ignore" your suggestions, it was just too late. At any rate, I will try to implement some of your suggestions now. Please bear with me, as you are correct - I am unfamiliar with this process. If you feel you can adjust the page, be my guest. Smee 00:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  • I have notified User:Jossi as per your suggestion and asked for help. DIFF If you think you can fix some of the links on the RFC page, and/or fix it to be more appropriate, that would be most helpful. Smee 01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Also, can an editor list/link at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct or is that an Admin's job? How is the proper way to do this? Smee 01:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

"Changing it into a userpage can be done any time as long as nobody has commented, after that it'll be too late." Nobody has commented, so I can still userfy it to give you more time for dispute resolution. Shall I do that, or do you think you can have it done up right within the 48 hours? I won't do a technical fix of the links at this stage, as I think you need links to better places. Good that you pinged Jossi. Anybody can list the page, but if you do want the page userfied, it shouldn't be listed yet. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I am not opposed to userfying the page, but User:Anynobody started the RFC initially, I was just responding to his request that I add comments/evidence. If you or Anynobody wishes to do that - I have no objection - but I probably should not. Smee 01:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Oh, I'd better not, then, I assumed you two were in touch. But I've moved A's explanation from the talkpage to the project page. Please let him know that he should sign it, if you speak — no reason to make the reader dig around for who is bringing the RFC. Bishonen | talk 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I wouldn't know any more than you. I've only "spoken" to him through Wikipedia talk pages. But I will let him know if I do. Again, as User:Anynobody started the RFC, and not myself, as far as I am concerned your judgment is fine. Smee 01:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm really sorry to cause so much trouble on both of your parts, rest assured I'm learning. Also please understand I am very thankful for your help. Maybe an RfC was the wrong road for me to take? Essentially I'd like other editors to take a look at my interaction with User:Justanother. I honestly don't know if I'm wrong or right, so my intention in listing myself was making it clear I'm willing to accept accountability for any errors I've made. Anynobody 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC) To be clear I'm happy to accept any suggestions. Anynobody 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Better than an RfC, that as Bishonen put it are "horrible timesinks" (an opinion that I also share), would you consider informal mediation between you and Justanother? Sometimes having such a third-party assisting can really help in disputes such as this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I did consider mediation at first, but personally I'd like to hear from several editors. If I understand what Bishonen is proposing, it would be to move the page as is to a subpage under my userpage. Once it gets a few comments, then move it back to the RfC? If that's what the proposal is I have no objections. Anynobody 06:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not "once it gets a few comments". It won't get comments while it's in your userspace, that's the whole point. It won't start until it's moved back to a live RFC, and, on my reading of the always-vexed RFC rules, you would be able to restart the clock for those 48 hours when it was moved back. What you need the time for is dispute resolution. The rule is that there must be real attempts, by two people, to resolve differences with JA, or the RFC gets deleted. It doesn't have to be formal mediation, informal is fine, but it must be a real discussion—not scolding JA with warning templates and such. Of course the hope is that the mediation will be enough in itself, and the RFC become superfluous—compare Jossi's comment here. But if it isn't enough, it's in any case a prerequsite for the RFC. OK, I've gone ahead and moved the page into your userspace as User:Anynobody/Requests for comment/Justanother. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

A quick question before this goes any further, did it really seem like I was posting warning templates and scolding him? Anynobody 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, IMO your attempts were ok, I was talking about Smee's. "There must be real attempts, by *two people*, to resolve differences with JA". See the top of the RFC template: "at least *two people* need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed". You're only one. Bishonen | talk 07:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

I am fine with whatever User:Anynobody and User:Bishonen are comfortable with. Smee 07:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen I guess your proposal confused me because Smee and myself make two people trying to resolve these issues on User:Justanother's talkpage. I found a couple of other editor's who's posts User:Justanother archived from his talk page regarding similar concerns. I re-posted it for consideration. If it fails (the RfC), then it fails. I really do appreciate your time on this, thanks :) Anynobody 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Uvak38/Veronica Yurach Aboriginal Artist

User:Uvak38/Veronica Yurach Aboriginal Artist Thank you Bishonen for moving my article and not just quick deleting it. I also appreciate your advice on the wording in my article that needs to be changed, you are the first who has made it clear to me what is wrong with it. As far as Veronica's story goes I will have verifiable published reference material from a reliable source.

Very cool. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Clue needed

Hi. I know that Smee respects your opinion so could you please send him a clue re his removal of my POV tag. diff of my objecting. Thanks. --Justanother 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And edit warring over it. ps Please see User_talk:Jossi#Your_offer and User talk:MrDarcy#PA by User:Johnpedia for a different perspective on Anynobody, i.e. the view from the trenches. Thanks. --Justanother 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And finally the false accusation of PA. Smee is back and true to form. --Justanother 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Scared.

• I am quite frankly getting scared for my personal safety due to User:Justanother's personal attacks in edit summaries and elsewhere. DIFF1, DIFF2. There is a reason for the language text in Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks that says comment on content not contributors. I am uncomfortable and not well with this, to say the least. Smee 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  • OH MY GAWD. What a drama queen! Can someone please please please send him a clue! --Justanother 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry this conflict is getting to you, Smee. I have to agree with Friday and Justanother that there's no external reason for you to be scared, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. That's not what it's supposed to be like to edit here! I hope you'll find it in you to walk away from the most stressful pages for a few days and decompress by editing uncontroversial stuff. When people do that, they're often surpried and relieved to find that other people do pick up the slack. That the page does survive their absence. Or so ALoan tells me. ALoan, back me up here? Bishonen | talk 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Thank you for the support. Smee 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
        • And Smee, while I figured the "Scared" was all BS for effect, I do realize that I could have been wrong and you might actually be getting that upset and really be feeling fear. Just know, Smee, that I come in peace! Mean you no harm. Would certainly buy you a cuppa coffee if we were to meet. So no worries, man. --Justanother 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
          • That is hard to believe, but I will try. Suffice it to say that that situation would be unlikely to occur. Smee 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
            • Smee, I am a total sweetheart! You would love me. --Justanother 03:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
              • We're done here. while I figured the "Scared" was all BS for effect does not go very far towards acknowledging that my feelings are real. It invalidates your following statements. But thanks for the effort. Just try to act like a total sweetheart here on Wikipedia, like you would offline, and we should get along better. Smee 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
                • I said that to explain why I called you a "drama queen" instead of making any effort to acknowledge your feelings and try to assuage your fears. Bishonen's reply highlighted my failing so I tried to repair it. Or at least repair the part where you say that you felt fear for your safety in the real world. As far as your "safety" here, I offered you an olive branch twice and you spit at me. That said, I have decided to give my sarcasm a rest but you can still expect me to continue to object most strenuously to any abusive editing on your part. --Justanother 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • I am glad that you say that you will finally try to give your sarcasm a rest. I am sure that will be appreciated by all. Smee 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
                    • Maybe. --Justanother 03:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Isps gate.jpg

This image was released under the GFDL. I'm not aware that such a release can be revoked. Is there a reason why it was deleted? -Will Beback · † · 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was problematic, sorry. In view of what I've just read on the article talk, and what people told me on IRC, I've undeleted. Bishonen | talk 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. -Will Beback · † · 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Clue-o-gram needed

File:HulkStamp.jpg

Anynobody thinks this is me . . . really

ROARRR!!

Would you mind helping User:Anynobody out with a clue? I am including a stamp because I figured that you probably needed one and that is why you were not able to clue Smee in for me earlier. Anyway, now Anynobody is impugning User:MrDarcy as "representing" me and being "out of line". Diff. I feel bad because Mr Darcy is on wiki-break and he was just trying to help me with a very rude post, User talk:MrDarcy/Archive5#PA by User:Johnpedia. Thanks. --Justanother 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

From my archive "You appear to experience some kind of Incredible Hulk persona when you really start to melt down (I was gonna say Jekyl/Hyde but the Hulk sounds less like an insult considering many consider him to be a superhero whereas the former is considered a monster)." --Anynobody --Justanother 05:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Monstergram

(Oh, come on.) To whom it concern: little Justanother total sweetheart. What's with bad press for monsters? ROAAARRRR!!! Bishzilla | ROAR 07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC).