User talk:Bishonen

TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK

Please post at the foot of the page!

Okay! El_C 01:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

My saved bits, Second subpage

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9

First goat!

First Goat Goat Goat Goat Goat Goat !

P.S. Here is a picture of a goat, though it may soon be deleted. So, enjoy it while it's yes! Best wishes, El_C 01:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Aww! Thanks, El, you have the best timing! I was just in the right mood to appreciate a friendly goat gesture in this godforsaken place. Bishonen | talk 01:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

.............Come to pappa little goati - here's a nice bowl of your favourite food - I know a nice place for you to come and live Giano | talk 07:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

My devotion to goat cheese is boundless, but it has to be really strong, and goodolive oil! P.S. This was one of the best interwiki edit I ever made, right next to Great tit! Alas, nobody noticed, or if they did, care! Which greatly pleases me, actually. El_C 00:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure they are thrilled to bits to read about Palermo as they ride their camels through the dersert. Giano | talk 06:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Question

Hi Bishonen. I hope you can help me on this... You appear to have some languistical skills, so I come to ask you about changes user 81.109.252.129 made on September 27 (today) that caught my watchlist. Do you know if the expression "died" to be preferred for "passed away" (Such as in this instance)? Fred-Chess 15:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yes, very good edits. The factual and neutral "died" is a lot more encyclopedic than the vaguely religious euphemism "passed away". Bishonen | talk 16:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Aha, ok thanks. Fred-Chess 21:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Comics

As I feared, Steve block auto-reverted my move of American comic book to American comics without any attempt to support his views with references or the likes. He made a post at my talkpage about it without any further argumentation, but with a claim that consensus had already been reached about this issue at WP:CMC.

The current contrived separation of "American comic book" and "British comic" will make any attempt to expand the articles very hard. Some kind of help would be appreciated.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Since Peter supplied no references or sources supporting his move I did not realise I was operating under different provisions. I have however always provided references when asked and am offended at any insinuation otherwise. Steve block talk 14:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you would also like to read Talk:Graphic novel where there is a consensus against a similar move and where I reference the main thrust of my argument. I would therefore also appreciate some neutral help in this matter. And please note I have never once claimed any consensus at WP:CMC. I merely extended an invitation to discuss the matter there, as it seemed the best forum to achieve a consensus on such moves. And it would probably also be best if you directed any questions you have for me to my talk page, rather than on article pages, wouldn't you agree? I'm assuming good faith here, and hope I get the same from everyone else I am dealing with. Thanks for your time and efforts. Steve block talk 15:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, the wiki way of turning people off: frost and fine phrases. You aim a blast of offendedness and displeasure, and you speak of neutral help and good faith. Good luck with the Collaboration of the Fortnight. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I can see there is little more to say. Steve block talk 17:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Angus Ross lives!

Well, I found out that Angus Ross wrote the article on John Arbuthnot for the new DNB. How could I resist using it as my reference work for totally rewriting that article? At least it now tells us something, like how to get a Ph.D. in a single day. Geogre 00:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Block on request

I've seen autoblocks of your requested block come by a few times. Are you sure that the user has a static IP he isn't sharing with anyone else? Otherwise this could be blocking innocent editors. --fvw* 00:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I know, I'm well aware of it. It's not actually a static IP, it's one of those changes-theoretically-but-hardly-ever, and it's not shared. I do keep a lookout and check with the user, as I quite agree this kind of thing simply mustn't be allowed to cause collateral damage. Thanks for keeping an eye out, Frank. Bishonen | talk 01:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Listen to Nafaanra!

Hi Bishonen!

I'm writing this message to you because you are one of the editors who supported Nafaanra language on its way to become a Featured Article. Back in February, quite a few of you asked for sound recordings. I am really excited to let you know that User:Alafo, who came across Wikipedia when googling for Nafaanra, the native language of his wife, has provided us with some fine recordings of the language. I have just added them to the article so that all of us can enjoy the sounds of Nafaanra from Ghana. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

All of us except us Mac users, grrrrrrr.... I got an .ogg runaround, same as only yesterday (when I tried to listen to Peter pronouncing "bishonen")... all right, that's it, I'm downloading Audacity right now.

Looking.. clicking... messing ... removing noise... ha! Loud and clear! How cool is that? I do remember when the people asked for sound recordings, and you sounded like it was the most complete pipedream. I can't believe you found a Nafaanra speaker! :-) Great. Bishonen | talk 12:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Almost can't believe it myself :) — mark ✎ 14:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Giovanni Vaccorini

Thanks for that, I had completely forgotten I had already done him, untill I eloborated him, he's very important to my masterpeice. Do you know how to make it clear it's a sub-page, as he and some others are all part of my theme. I've some wonderful portraits - but wiki has had that - bloody info box, it's like a downmarket Sunday tabloid. Did you see ALoan@s link - that was actually very funny! Very funny indeed. What a nice little goat - is she lonely here? Giano | talk 20:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I think you'll find the RSPCA and the "Società per la prevenzione di crudeltà alle capre siciliane" take a very dim view indeed of people keeping animals all alone, in dark seldom visited places! Whereas my own page is a veritable hive of sparkling conversation and wit Giano | talk 08:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

And becomung more sparkling by the minute - explosive one might almost say! Giano | talk 09:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Time again

Hi Bishonen. Now that the people have started to delete images, I thought I could finally get some of my orphans deleted, images I moved to commons a long time ago. So I started tagging them with "no source", since admins seem ruthlessly happy with deleting those.

But then I remembered that I know two admins who might do that for me even faster. A little embarrising to have to ask you all the time though. I would do it myself, but I still don't seem to have become admin.

Here are my orphans.

Fred-Chess 20:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Poor little orphans! OK, infanticide completed. Uh, are you sure that was right? It just struck me that the Commons images have the same names. I hope I didn't delete those as well, by clicking on your gallery images. If I did, you'd better re-upload them. Btw, did you know you can link to an image without displaying it, by putting a colon first in the name? Like I've done here. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. All these images were uploaded to the local wikipedia. But you are not an admin on wikimedia commons, no?

These images are none the less double redundant. Most have both a .jpg uploaded to commons, and then another improved .png counterpart. In the long run, all jpg images will be replaced with .png's. These were just the really orphaned, the first batch so to speak.

Thanks also for the tip. My intention was actually to initiate a guessing game, believe it or not...

Fred-Chess 21:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Warning

You have violated the spirit of Wikipedia:Edit summary - "edit summaries are not the place to carry on debates or negotiation over the content. Doing this will actually exacerbate the situation, because it naturally encourages the other party to respond in the same manner". In other words, describe your EDIT, don't converse with other EDITORS.

Now then, are you reverting me out of spite? Rivarez is a sock puppet of Wik. You're encouraging him by edit warring. -- Netoholic @ 05:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

To add a personal note, keep in mind that edit summaries travel as a permanent record along with the article. Internal Wikipedia bickering is inappropriate use of the edit summary. It's also the one thing on Wikipedia you cannot undo. -- Netoholic @ 05:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason I reverted you is that I feel strongly about the article's appearance, and disagree with you about the template enhancing it. I don't "own" John Vanbrugh but I put a lot of work into it and care a lot about the subject. I reverted Ta bu shi's insertion of the template on Sept 7, then yours on October 1; you call that "edit warring"...? But I take your point about edit summaries, I'm sorry I referred to the ArbCom thing in such a prominent and permanent place. I'll make a point of using talk pages for anything like that. Bishonen | talk 07:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

PS

I hope you are not too upset about the above edit. Here is the second batch of orphaned jpg COA: Image:Bromölla City Arms.jpg, Image:Surahammar City Arms.jpg, Image:Sorsele City Arms.jpg, Image:Perstorp City Arms.jpg, Image:Piteå City Arms.jpg, Image:Gotland City Arms.jpg.

// Thanks. Fred-Chess 20:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Bah, no, I'm fine. Your babies are gone. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

I did receive it, Bishonen. Thank you, and check you mailbox! Big hugs, Shauri Yes babe? 02:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Shauri, and congratulations on your adminship! Bishonen | talk 14:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You help and you support has been invaluable to me, Bishy. I'll never forget it. I'll always be here just in case you need me, and remember our little pact regarding... well you know what, ok? Warmest hugs! your friend, Shauri! Yes babe? 23:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Igor Bogdanov

Good morning Bishonen,

Thank you for your advise regarding the photo. I just inserted the requested tag on the description page. Hope I did it correctly. Let me know if there is a problem. Thank you again for your kind help which really helped us to achieve a balanced article. Your different posts and interventions were of great influence on its present state. Best to you, Igor

Thanks Igor, you tagged the photo just fine, that's great. Note that you can sign messages on talkpages automagically by typing four tildes, ~~~~, which converts to username plus timestamp when you save. Bishonen | talk 14:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Your apt and well-received declaration...

...has been memorialized at the bottom of this page. paul klenk ^talk

Heh heh. Thank you, Paul, I'm very proud of the flaming dancing hellpot award. Hmmm... I've created some awards, too, maybe I should add one or two to that page. Not the majorly weird ones, I guess, but, well, we'll see. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh, too. By the way, I'm trying to create a (serious) new Babel Barnstar for Translation Work; if you know of a graphic designer Wikipedian, I'd love to know them. paul klenk ^talk 14:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair affair

You did WHAT?! ... Cool!

Have the Ed Poor Memorial Crazy Bastard Audacious Action Barnstar for your work to quieten down this idiotic conflict - David Gerard 18:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Bishonen | talk 18:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually quite a good job ! Meanwhile, User:Igor B. have just violated the 3RR rule :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bogdanov_Affair&oldid=24659870
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=194.206.212.1
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=194.206.212.1

--YBM 18:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No, he hasn't, as far as I can see: he's allowed 3 reverts. But what bugs me is that he's editing logged out again. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Indeed I have not (always prompt to denonciate people, as usual, YBM).

The confusion comes from the fact that Grichka (my brothers) is away from Paris at the moment. During his travels, he plugs in his "PC Card" on his laptop and access network. Since he did not follow the last developements of our conversations, he does not know that he should log in under his name before posting. I will contact him tonight by phone and tell him that. If I did not do it before it is because, frankly, I thought that we had reached an agreement and that the article would not be subject to anymore changes. Helas! it was without counting YBM and his friend RBJ. As I wrote on the article page, I do not think that they are concerned by the common objective to reach a good article. There is something else in their action : desire to destroy? pleasure to "dominate us"? Ego problems? I don't know. But I know that as long as they do not understand the definition of what a "good article" should lool like (which does not mean a positive article about us) and accept the rules of Wikipedia, we will not reach any consensus.

Igor

There was no agreement, Igor, there were only people catching their breath and leaving it on "my" version for a while. Note that I don't particularly endorse "my" version, either. I improved the article by removing two frankly terrible rants (one on each side) from it, but I fully expect that it can stand further improvement. Please, the both of you, now that I'm about to remove my "in use" flag, edit constructively. If the other person's edit seems POV to you, rewrite it and add to it, rather than simply revert. Rbj, you too. Bishonen | talk 18:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I am ready for any improvement of the article, of course. But not for "blind addition" of negative quotes (as YBM and RBJ already did). We do have a major difficulty here. Either we merely suppress these citations (and we are entering the terrible "revert game"), or we add "positive" citations to balance the global content of the article. But this solution (endless addition of citations) will end up in a long collection of phrases and "anti phrases" which will loose everyone. Instead of gaining in clarity, the article will on the contrary become quite long and confusing.

What is your feeling? Is there a way to contain the "flud of citations" wanted by rbj and ybm?

Igor

I'm not getting into that issue, take it to Talk and try to get everyone involved. My own feeling is that it may be necessary to allow a lot of quotes, from both sides, at this stage, and then gradually and consensually peel them back. But that's just my 2c. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Good morning,

I just added some more "positive" comments in reaction to all the "negative" material collected by rbj. As I said, I do not think that it is a good idea to put together all these comments. I have 2 remarks and one proposal.

Remark : Rbj is now obliged to collect private emails (ie the one between the journalist Fabien Besnard and Urs Schreiber) in order to feed his "negative" tank. How far can we go like this? I observe that, at this point, we have far more "positive" (and argumented) material (it all comes from scientific discussions or reports made by mathematicians or physicists about our work) than rbj. If we continue like this, his material will come from YBM and other "internet anti Bogdas" that are haunting various forums. I really do not think that this will improve the article, far from it. As it is today, this article is really less good and clear than yesterday. Does rbj really care about it? Does Ybm care about it? I do not think so. Their only aim is to hit their target, by all means. As soon as we try to have a scientific discussion (ie our last answer to Lubos Motl on the discussion page) they promptly invent another pseudo to pollute this discussion with the same old "rengaines".

Proposal : I propose to come back to the version we achieved yesterday (with only the 3 "positive" additions to the 3 "negative" rbj's). At this point, every Wiki reader would have understood the controversial content of the "affair. This wayn the article would still be clear and readable.

What is your opinion?

Best regards to you,

Igor

Sorry, Igor, I took a bit of a break from Bogdanov Affair yesterday. I'll try to take a look at the issues. Bishonen | talk 07:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Laurence67's vandalism (to say the least)

How is an editor supposed to react in front of such a conduct ? --YBM 22:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Trollish and inflammatory edit by Laurence67. :-( I've reverted it. Bishonen | talk 07:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

AOL Block Removal

Thanks, appreciate you watching out for me. WBardwin 01:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. All things considered, I saw your message pretty quickly, I guess. I only wish JRM wasn't on break. :-( I hope you've got a few other admins watching your talkpage, there's always safety in numbers. Bishonen | talk 02:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Wanna see weird -- and what happens when Wikipedia gets ahold of something?

Check out Bathos. Maybe I'm too close to the article, but what's there now just seems...wrong. I have unkind words to say on the talk page, but it's not even about that. It just seems...broken. Geogre 03:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

One of the anons went... weird. Homer Simpson often offers an homage to the Master of a Show in Smithfield??? And other things. Bishonen | talk 19:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what I mean. It opens now in the middle of things, tosses about pop culture willy nilly, and then screws up the definition. Arguably, the anon meant to be 19th century clever with that allusion to Dunciad, but it's just...weird. I don't want to do the rewrite, as it would look like reversion, and, as I said on the talk page, it's not that all the stuff is worthless. It's just kind of unusable and absolutely misplaced. (For a different example of why Wikipedia is doomed to misinform the world, see Weland. It's all a Wiglaf-like run through the dry slopes of Norse mythology, and then, without any warning at all, it's a comic book discussion placed on the same level of priority.) Geogre 20:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you may or may not feel like doing the rewrite on Bathos, but do you know of anyone else I could ask? Would anyone else get why the article is messed up? Do you think it wouldn't look like stomping on newbies if I did it? (I really don't want to, because I'd delete a lot of the new stuff.) Geogre 20:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Geogre, you got to. I've got the Bogdanov Affair affair, among other things, and I'd like to finish The Relapse some day, it's my favorite. Are you trying to kill me? Anyway, I don't have the skill. I don't understand the distinctions: is it all a matter of the intention? Bishonen | talk 01:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It is. "Bathos" is an insult for a bad author who "sinks" when he attempts the sublime. Pope coined the term to suggest something deeper than the profound. He used the term to make fun of Philips and Cibber, and he picked out their worst lines as examples. Particularly, it occurs when the author doesn't realize that his comparison is so jarring as to be stupid or so indecorous as to be illegal (the comparison of God with a chamber maid in "God swept the clouds from the sky"). When the very lofty is done in a very low setting, you get bathos, but it has to be something performed with sincerity. That's why the Children's Theater production of Oedipus Rex is a perfect example: the little tykes are trying their best, but a 12 year old mouthing Sophocles is too much for the mind to bear without laughing. What bathos isn't is the conscious technique of undercutting that all our favorite poets used excessively. Pope, in particular, even did it with his rhymes, so that one line's rhyme with the next would imply an undercutting comparison. When Kierkegaard said that "the loss of an arm, a leg, or a wife" would be more noticed that the loss of a soul, he was being clever. When my student said, "A person could be mugged, murdered, or even raped!" she was being bathetic, but the deflation in series is really a cheap example (which is one why all that stuff at the opening is doubly silly). The biggest thing is that it's a pejorative. You'd never use it for Rape of the Lock or Description of a City Shower or London or Trivia, and yet all of those use a lot of undercutting and conscious comparison of the high with the low. Geogre 01:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'll do the rewrite in a day or two. Right now, I'm watching a FAC debate. I don't have much pride of authorship with it, but I do want it to succeed all the same, because I can't foresee its getting promoted without a nomination or its getting much better organically in less than 5 years. Geogre 01:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Opus Dei talk page

Thank you for your comments. I was the one who wrote the paragraphs. Sorry I forgot to sign. Kindly check my new comments. Marax 07:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will. Sorry it's taking a while, I'm rather busy. Bishonen | talk 00:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Tickler file

"Tickler file" is a generic term to refer to any list one keeps of reminders of things that will need to be attended to in the future. There is no feature in Wikipedia called "tickler file". But, you could create a subpage off your user page to keep a list of such things for your own periodic review. --Durin 13:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ohh. :-( I was hoping for something that'd jump up and tickle me, without the review part. Guess I'll just have to become more organised. But thank you! Bishonen | talk 13:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Pack your bags for a world tour

Bishonen, I just completed a project I started on Saturday. I had help from fifteen translators. To see it, click on the first item in the row below. This menu will follow you from page to page. Follow the arrows from link to link. Have fun.

paul klenk ^talk 00:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

→ en · de · fr · ja · pl · it · sv · nl · pt · es · zh · nn · no · fi · ru · da

Wow, you're one international Wikipedian. Glad you liked the cheese (it wasn't from JRM, actually). Flaming, dancing Bishonen, 17:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC).

Oh, you're right, it was from you! I got confused. It is a lovely picture, and actually was a very nice welcome to the site. I intend to leave it there! It'd like getting a fruit basket at your hotel, except the cheese is of a higher quality. paul klenk ^talk

Legs like a chairman of the bored

I get Kappa trying to prove that voting "keep" without regard to an article's contents is good, and you get XAL and YBM. <sigh>

Thanks for the compliment on Arbuthnot. I think, looking back on it, that it's slightly too chrnological and could benefit from more shaping (which would free it more from the DNB without letting it fall into the POV-trap of 1911). Swift knew that Arbuthnot was fat (and got fatter; he looks fine in his portrait, but at the end of his life he was quite overweight) and consequently waddled, so mentioning the waddle was a way of politely not mentioning the obesity, I think. I love what you're doing with The Relapse. Just call, if you want any help there. My own (pathetic) Peterborough Chronicle is getting improved while on FAC by the voters, which is a rare and wonderful thing. I really did nominate it early, but I wanted to get a medieval lit. FA on the boards and knew that I wouldn't be able to get Ormulum up to snuff for a while (if ever; there just isn't much to say about it, while Peterborough has a ripping yarn in it).

Macheath found a Swedish toy that had been lost in my car since North Carolina today, and I have had to hear it all day. (The toy was stowed in the car during a move and never dug out from under the seat until the repo man came. It was rescued after the reclamation from the repossession.) Geogre 02:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Speleman article, first version

Just wanted to say thanks for the Norwegian and Danish terms. Did you know them, or searched for them? I finally ended up on speleman - one of the Norwegian versions of the word, that also is very common in Swedish. speleman music Maybe someone comes up with a more generally accepted English term, if there is one, later.

It will be interesting to see if someone with more detailed knowledge on the subject turns up. What I can contribute will, for natural reasons, be pretty Sweden-biassed although it is obvious that this subject is better handled from a Nordic, rather than a Swedish, Danish etc. perspective. Do you know if there is a space at enwiki where people who are interested in music (other than pop and rock) meet?

Actually, it is fun that there is a field where English Wikipedia doesn't already have all the articles. :-) I sometimes get the impression I can not do much here... / Habj 16:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure you can. What a nice well-balanced speleman article! I suggest you ask Mindspillage about the musical space. She writes a lot of music articles, I'm sure she knows. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Peterborough's Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

Forget for a minute the long-winded explanation on my talk page. Does the text of the article now explain why Winchester Cathedral is linked, or did I misunderstand the question? Geogre 21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

My problem is that your text doesn't mention Winchester Cathedral, and Winchester Cathedral doesn't mention any chronicle. Easter eggs don't count. In the paper version, they literally won't exist, and they're altogether deprecated; JRM is always unpacking them, and I've started to do the same. Secondly, "Winchester's" just sounds odd, to me, ugly and ungrammatical. Is that how people refer to that chronicle? It seems such an uneasy fit for "the Peterborough Chronicle". If you were to write an article about it, would it be entitled "Winchester's Chronicle"... ? Both these problems would go away if it could be referred to as "the Winchester Cathedral Chronicle", but I suppose it can't. Or better still, "the Winchester Chronicle", because there's little intrinsic point in linking to Winchester Cathedral. It's not much of an article. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hang on. You're not expecting me to be responsible for Winchester Cathedral being poor, are you? When JRM unpacks for a print version, that print version doesn't exist yet, and most of the time people pipe the references, it's to get grammatical agreement in the sentence, so unpacking makes little sense to me. The flaw is in the print version, not the smooth-reading online version, and I don't think we should be sacrificing readability to prevent some hypothetical problem. "This place's chronicle was a copy of that place's" is the sense of my sentence, and I think there would be overuse of "chronicle" to unpack the prep. object. As for the Winchester Cathedral article having no #History section that covers its importance as a medieval center of learning, that's something that can be fixed. The link is so that folks can know what I mean when I say "Winchester's": I don't mean the town of Winchester's or a guy named Winchester's, but the cathedral at Winchester's. The "easter egg" does count, since anyone clicking on that link would find Winchester Cathedral, which was built just after the Conquest, and which took over from an older abbey (and that's in the article). It would be great if there were a Winchester Chronicle article, but that's a bit too esoteric. The Winchester Chronicle is remarkable mainly as being the best one for the early accounts and being terribly commonly copied by other houses. Its Anglo-Saxon is standard and unremarkable, and it stops at the Conquest, so there isn't much to say about it. Further, it's not one of the ones with remarkable and unique material in it (e.g. Battle of Brunanburgh or the little sermons interposed or the accounts of marvels). It's a very respectable, restrained chronicle, which is what makes it kind of dull and not worth writing about except as a component of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Geogre 01:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, "the Winchester Chronicle" is usually called "The Parker Chronicle," because Matthew Parker owned it after the monastic break up. "The four chronicles recognized as distinct are called the Winchester Chronicle, the Abingdon Chronicle, the Worcester Chronicle, and the Peterborough Chronicle." Wikipedia has articles on only Peterborough and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Lacking a chance to refer to an article on Parker Chronicle (which would also need a pipe, because they wouldn't understand the geographical reference of Winchester Cathedral from the name used today for it), there are only two places I could refer: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or Winchester Cathedral. Geogre 01:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Consolations of Popery

I noticed that Aaron Breneman says that rhyming couplet insults will be treasured. Well, heck, that's easy for anyone who reads Dryden and Pope every week. :-) (No, no insults, but it was fun to attempt pentameter couplets...sometimes iambic and sometimes not.) Geogre 14:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

What a flipping morass that XAL junk is! I guess it's good that I'm not running for ArbCom, because at this point I'd figure we could just delete the whole damned article until the apes wandered away and then start afresh. Whatever people can say about the "affair," and I have no opinions on things physickal (except that, as Parmenides said, time and motion are both illusions), there is this dog and pony show going on in ring #2 where XAL proves an insane clown posse of one. One thing is clear: ArbCom is damned slow. This crap has been going on for far, far, far, far, far, far too long. (Aaron has proposed a new watchlist (see my talk page for a link to it), and he wondered "what happened here" with Tony Sidaway jumping out of the bushes to induce entropy into the talk page, so I wrote a poem to explain to him what happened. You ought to see the poem. I think it might bring a smile and offset some of the spontaneously generating crud you've been having to deal with lately.) Geogre 20:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

OMG, you've gone into bardic mode! :-) What happen, anyway? I thought you were going to run for ArbCom? Is it too late? You should! Bishonen | talk 23:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I still favor it in the abstract, although my recent, "Look, buster, I don't care if I live or die, so don't expect me to give a flip about your feelings" binge probably wouldn't argue well. It would be as well to have Fil on. It's not too late by any measure. The elections are in December, but I think Filiocht is motivated and got on the stick early. I don't know if he's visible enough generally to win. I think there will be a massive IRC lensing effect, which is one more reason why I think the IRC channel ought to be stopped. It's distorting votes on the project like nobody's business -- sometimes for people I like and sometimes against people I like -- but by any objective measure it distorts votes on RFA, and I have no doubt it will do the same on ArbCom.

I know it's bad form to laugh at one's own jokes, but I impressed my own damned self with that poem. I'm not sure that it's comprehensible without footnotes, and it has a triplet in it, and there is enjambment that's more Dryden than Pope, and, and, and.... Still, it cracks me up, and for ad libitum it's one of those things where I have to wonder how I did it. Geogre 00:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

My dear Bishonen: I wanted to thank you very much for your support of my RfA candidacy. I feel privileged to count you amongst my friends on Wikipedia, and I feel honoured that so many people whom I respect have volunteered their support and kind words. Your support, friendship, and assistance (especially with the Bogdanov Saga) is, as always, a true asset, and one that I am not sure I could do without on Wikipedia; for that alone I owe you immense gratitude. I do hope that I shall be a good skipper of HMS Adminship, and I promise to sail her as best I can through both calm seas and rolling, tempestuous storms. Once again, thank you, my dear. I shall speak to you on IRC. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 03:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

My sincere thanks

Thanks, Bishonen, for taking time to write comments (for a record third time) on the Opus Dei page. I've just modified the introduction of the article to incorporate your suggestions and proposed to the guys there a possible solution to the issue. I will also explore other ways to incorporate the "other POVs" more explicitly in other parts of the article. Again, my sincerest thanks, for you have been so kind. :-) Best wishes! Marax 07:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Marax, glad you look at it that way! Bishonen | talk 07:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, as Escriva said, "Love is deeds, and not sweet words," and your actions spoke more of kindness than anything else... I've done more correcting on the article, thanks to your prodding. Hasta luego! Marax 09:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you think

Its too long? There's another section on interiors to go yet! I don't want to chop any out, I've already done 10 sub pages! Giano | talk 09:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

OMG interiors? It's already at John Vanbrugh length. I don't know. I do see it's all of a piece, you can't possibly chop it in half or something. Lemme have a think. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

And another!

This one's cheesy, but I did write Redwolf's ode. Geogre 13:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

for the congrats. I was noticing that FA's were getting shorter and shorter and shorter, so I figured that PC, about which nothing much more could be said without getting into philology (which would be as fun for the general reader as going through the strengths of covalent bonds in a chemistry article is), would work. I appreciate the help and apologize for the prickliness. Geogre 19:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Literature

Hi, just discovered this. Are you interested in helping it along, as nothing much seems to be happening with it? Geogre? Anyone else watching? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, dear me. What a right royal mess you've gotten int. Hope it all gets resolved soon. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks a bit...ambitious...for me. I obsess about every little thing, so a huge thing like that would likely cause apoplexy. (How the hell can Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man be a stub?! That's an outrage, that is. I'm only lucky that it has been 20 years or more since I read it and therefore that it is beyond my power to do anything about its stubbiness. Otherwise, weeks of productive time would be swallowed up by it.) Geogre 13:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think I may play with it for a while, in the gaps between List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy, the Objectivist poets and my stuttering election campaign/attempt to change the world. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?

Because they should be... A Link to the Past brought you up as someone who supported trimming List of Wario games down. I'd appreciate it if you could voice your opinion at Talk:List of Wario games, since a fair few users (myself included) have some objections to trimming that list. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look at the talk page you mention and see if the discussion is on a level where I can usefully contribute; I'm a bit wary of it, since I don't know much about games. I was chatting with Link about defining something like "an x game" in a logical way, and agreeing with him from that point of view. There may be other considerations that I don't have much of a handle on, but, well, I'll take a look. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

He mentioned your name on that talk page, but then removed it, with an edit summary stating that he shouldn't have mentioned you without asking your permission. I dunno what his thinking is, but your input would be appreciated. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Your Colley Cibber, and I want my 5 pounds!

It appeareth that Colley Cibber will be widely seen on one of the 50 top web sites in the world on October 18, 2005. Congratulations to its author! Geogre 14:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, Charles Gildon now has an actual biography of the guy. I was thinking of making up stuff about how he fought a bear when he was 5 and save the life of the Great Mogul, but no one would get that joke but you and me. Besides, it would be wrong. It's as good a bio as I could make given the sources I could find. Geogre 17:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What the...? I replied to Geogre here an hour ago! :-( All right, trying again: OTOH *I* would get it spades, so I think you should put in the bit about fighting a bear! Bishonen | talk 20:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes yes yes.....I'm sure Colley Cibber is very important, but what is wrong with this site, each time I paste a section into Sic bar, all I get is two sections muddled together. Final Years has disappeared altogether, and interiors is not all there - what's going on. If you press edit you can see it properly - its all very off! Do any of your IRC people know how to solve this? 18:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Some of my IRC people are trying to figure it out, but the wiki is so slow and weird that they're having trouble. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, I've seen the exact same thing once before, with some article talk page. I think the solution turned out to be pretty simple... it's just that I can't remember it. :-( Anyways, best leave it alone and edit in a text editor for now. Don't worry, I'm sure it's that which is in the edit field that's really on the server. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What's a Sic bar? Sic transit gloria mundi? I've been to some really shady bars before, and some of them were kind of unhealthy, but I'm not sure any were sic. So, once more, with feeling: Bishonen, your Colley Cibber article is going to be on the main page next week. There. Oh, and Congratulations on that, and brace yourself for a thousand tiny helping hands on it. Geogre 01:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Please Geogre could you stop interjecting for a moment. I just want to than Bish for sorting out my problem - the usual envelope is in the post. We all know that Bish (yet again) is headed for the front page. No wonder, when one thinks of all those roubles and skandabrods (or whatever passes for currency in that bleak land of permafrost) that she has been donating to Raul's holiday fund. We could all write daily featured articles if we lived in 23 hours of darkness a day, and the only excitement was the occasional yak wandering into the igloo. For you information Sic Bar is an informative, concise, interesting and lively page with a whole fascinating section on Sicilian tombstones. Destined for the front page as soon as Raul (and that nice Jimbo) return from the vacation I have kindly given them at my summer residence "Palazzo Splendido" in the Cayman Islands, where I have been forced to retreat following the unjust persecution of my company "Palermo Publishing" by the Vatican and several other global feminist organizations. What's that about heresy down below. I'll go and have a look, always interested in the Inquisition, fascinating business methods, so useful in the modern world of commerce and pursuasion, I find. Now do stop worrying Geogre about unscrupulous people. Wikipedia is a haven of freedom from such people. Giano | talk 07:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You know, I think about it more and more. See, Wikipedia propagates through a zillion mirrors. It gets all over the world. So did Charles Gildon. Gildon spread his lies through 2-3 centuries of biographies and textbooks by lazy editors and authors and by the unfortunate. It would be justice to fictionalize a sentence or two in the bio. It would not be "WP:POINT," as some would accuse me of, but 18th:POINT or Lit:POINT. It would be a little poetic justice. How about giving him a love affair with a black African in Antwerp?

At any rate, if you like getting in the middle of wiki-controversies and abuse of admin powers and the like, then look at Talk:Manichaeism, where I may end up in a revert tiff with an anonymous coward (Mr. IP Freely) who is fairly obviously a true believer of some revival of this cult. He generally left my edits to the article alone, but he removed one sentence. Weirdly, it was a sentence that made his people look good, not bad, but I'm not sure that his reading skills are all that great. I reverted his removal of that sentence. If he removes it again, I'll revert that again. Anyway, just a heads up on that. (Also, on Talk:Manichaeism I issued one of those "go play in traffic" dismissals that can only make him angry. I'm sorry, but once it became clear that I was corresopnding not just with a heretic, but a person trying to be a heretic revivalist (how bizarre is that...ransacking history to find a heresy to support?), I figured that he wasn't at the article to write a history, but to express a view. There wasn't going to be any good coming of further dialog, so a dismissal was the kindest thing possible.) Geogre 02:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Giano, if you haven't encountered them before, there are people who are seeking, Madame Blavatsky-style, to revive extinct heresies, particularly dualist ones. The book Holy Blood, Holy Grail spurred on a group of neo-Albigensians. From that, a fellow or two got the bright idea to write more stuff about possible Holy scions and, of course, other dualisms. Thus, a new Manichaeism. Wikipedia is not the place for the malleus mallefactorum, so I'm not going to invoke any Holy Office, but they have a strong POV that they want to insert, just like UFO freaks, "brand new art movement" people, band members, and friends of the Bogdanovs. Thing is, neo-dualists are so rare, and Wikipedia membership is so not involved with the old theology, that few people even recognize it when they see it. Even then, I wouldn't much care, except that the article, complete with its "Manichaeans took all that is best in all religions and combined them" and "Manichaeans showed the truth to Christians," is up for FAC. I objected strongly, and only the nominator supported. The exoticism of the topic is enough to scare away voters, and my strenuous vote probably would scare away others, so it's not going to get promoted. Beyond that, I suppose I don't need to care. Geogre 10:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Geogre, you must think I have some odd tastes. It's not so much that I like wikicontroversies, but I do seem drawn to go look at complaints on WP:ANI from people who're not very wiki-savvy, and who sound like they're desperately trying to fend off somebody who's mobbing them. Depressingly common, that. You never know what you're gonna find, but it's a good recipe for getting in trouble, all right (last time I found Sophie, and thank you for your loyal defence and outrage there, sweetheart). Anyway, never mind, speaking of Colley Cibber, have you guys seen the new tabular version of List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"? It uses the {{prettytable}} template, and it's got very systematic and concise descriptions. :-) The previous verbose item info has been migrated to stubs. What do you think? Bishonen | talk 18:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Boyakasha!

I jusst wante to let you know I'm back home now and just hopping everything is going all right with you. If you have any qusetions just let me know honey.Wiki brah 03:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yet another RM-debacle

This time it's at talk:skånska#Requested move. I'm hoping people are actually going to understand my arguments, but it would be nice to have some support if violet/riga comes along demanding to get her paragrafrytteri-thang done.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe Isotalo has misunderstood the chief question at issue, which is that Skånska is undesirable as a name in the English wikipedia, and should be changed to a name including Scanian, whatever the rest of the name may be. I am tempted to suspect he has mistaken the present name of the article. I have argued at some length that he has misread Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages (at the bottom of Talk:Skånska) and invite you to read and tell me what I have gotten wrong. Septentrionalis 18:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Skånska#Requested moved I have altered single "first past the post" vote to approval voting so that we can try to reach a consensus. Please check that your vote still reflects your position as I may have misunderstood your voting intentions or you may wish to vote for more than one proposal. Philip Baird Shearer 22:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Take a Joke?

The redirect wasn't nonsensical as you claim. Yu-gi-Oh! is gay...I remember last summer, everyone was so OBSESSED with it...and the show lays a turd. So yeah, that was dumb. Sorry. But I didn't know that making something a redirect blanked it!

I accept your apology, Flamewiper12, and blanking is easily reverted, so that's fine. As for "nonsense", in vandalism warnings it's most often a wiki euphemism: we say "nonsense" when we mean something worse. Please note that you can sign your posts on talkpages by signing four tildes, ~~~~. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Different Jokes

There is some fun erupting on my talk page that requires literature, pop culture, and, optionally, Wikipersonae. Geogre 18:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

User:209.226.83.2

Hi, can you put a block on this user? They have continued to vandalise since your "This is your final warning" warning, see for example calcium chloride. I don't know the procedure for requesting a block, but this person is quite persistent. Thanks, Walkerma 18:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Walkerma. Blocked for persistent childish vandalism. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If you have a minute

I'd like to come here only for the fun things, but here I am again asking for a special favour.

There has been some anonymous uncautious editing to republic:

• The edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic&diff=next&oldid=25341195 - 08:05, 12 October 2005 (removing interwiki-links, references, disambig sentence on top of the article, etc..., etc...)
• The Ip performing this edit: 213.202.183.129 (talk · contribs)

There's this other user who first thought I had done the "damage", but I quickly made him see that wasn't the case, so we both agreed to go and look for an admin capable to revert to the earlier version, before the selective delete.

So if you feel like it (or could point me to the proper procedure for such questions), would it be possible to revert to the version by user:MONGO, 07:50, 12 October 2005 (that is this version) - MONGO had apparently reverted the first attempt at section deleting by 213.202.183.129, but not the next one. --Francis Schonken 21:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Good grief, what a mess. I'd use a stronger word than "incautious" for someone who blanks great swathes of an article and then reverts the person who cleans up after them. I suppose User:Reddi was attempting to undo the damage? Not by reverting the anon (unfortunately), but by adding in a lot of partial restorations. The problem is assessing the value of Reddi's last version, as against the one you ask me to revert to... hmmm... this is very difficult. There aren't any admin tools that are relevant, more's the pity. Somewhat at hazard, I'm going to assume that Reddi's edits merely duplicate some of the blanked work, revert to MONGO as you suggest, and then put in Stirling Newberry's new lead. OK? You know the article better than I do, please see what you think of the result, Francis. (Always nice to see you on my page, anyway!) Bishonen | talk 22:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Tx. Stirling is the one I had the talk with, and he had already said he wouldn't mind his last edit to the lead section not being restored (the MONGO version had some of Stirlings content in the lead section too)

But no problem, we'll have a look at it and take it from there. If the big work of restoring the references etc. is performed that the big help which is the very painstaking part without the sysop's magical stick)

Again, thanks --Francis Schonken 22:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you know, not to keep on about it, but I did I revert to MONGO exactly the way you'd do it yourself. No magic stick, just waved the usual dead chicken and spoke the incantation. (IOW, clicked on the old version, edited it by adding a space, and saved.) Didn't even sacrifice a goat. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

VfU

Re: [1] That's understandable. The more important matter, I suppose, is preventing the misuse of the "dubious templates." Their use would set a bad precedent for misusing the tools meant to flag unverified information in articles as tools in flame wars in the Wikipedia and Talk namespaces. Thanks for your consideration. 172 | Talk 12:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I just got your note on my talk page. In order to avoid the crossfire (and further charges of "immorality," "abuses of power," and "deleting evidence"), I no longer want to make any edits to the VfU discussion. But I trust you to delete or modify any of my comments as you see fit. Thanks again for the consideration. 172 | Talk 12:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Sure, I'll do that. I certainly don't blame you for avoiding the page. Bishonen | talk 12:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Votes_for_undeletion#Totalitarian_dictators

I appreciate your intent, and explanation on VfU, and I probably would not have objected to the <personal attack removed> if it had not seemed so conclusive and condemnatory (.e.g., presuming to be judge and jury). Something less conclusive such as <rm alleged personal attack> or <rm possible personal attack>, that would have suggested to the readers that they should make their own judgements, would probably have been fine. I am satisfied with the current state, because the readers are at least made aware that there is a record/history to be investigated.

As to the specific comment which seems to concern you the most, there is a history between 172 and me that justifies most of it (he was territorial about certain articles in which he largely painted post Stalin soviet leaders as reformers, and barely documented the continued oppressive nature of the regimes). The part where I extrapolate to his possible personal life, is of course, speculative. I admit that it is entirely possible that in his personal life he is a complete Milquetoast, and would never cross any questionable lines, and his behavior here is just a manifestation of the breakdown in of moral restraint that occurs under the cloak of anonimity. But by speculating in this way, I hoped to convict his conscience with what others might conclude from his behavior. He seems to be immune to this however.

As to the use of the "dubious" template, I don't see where it is a misuse of it at all, although I wish that it was a little less intrusive in the text by referring to the talk page, which of course required an explanation there. In retrospect, perhaps just editing the <personal attack removed> to the "alleged" or "possible" would have been less intrusive. Would you have objected to that?--Silverback 13:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback is arguing that my reopening of the deletion debate regarding the category "is just a manifestation of the breakdown in of moral restraint that occurs under the cloak of anonymity." This allegation has already been discredited. "The attempted closure Silverback points to was improper, especially in such a close case, because it was performed by one of the partisans for the 'keep' side." --[2] His other charge is that I am "territorial about certain articles in which [I] largely painted post Stalin soviet leaders as reformers, and barely documented the continued oppressive nature of the regimes." I believe he is referring to my removal of some of his material in History of Russia on grounds that it was unsourced original research. He is correct in pointing out that I am the main author of the article. But he did not point out that the article is an FA. It is an insult to the community that it would allow the featuring of an article as apologetic of the Soviet Union as Silverback implies. Certainly we have quite thin evidence to state as a matter of fact, as Silverback does above, that I am 'immune to conviction of conscious'. 172 | Talk 15:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What you fail to point out, is that User:Kbdank71 also closed every other Sep23 vote that was still open that day, you have no problem casting doubt on his integrity. He acted fairly, you just didn't like the results. Still, if you are going to undertake the doubtful and unusual step of reopening a closed vote, you should be willing to notify every voter, instead of starting a one party campaign. You probably should also post it on the various notice boards and forums. If the step was so reasonable, why couldn't you trust that some other user would do it? Don't you wonder why it is repeatedly you that is unable to resist the temptation to abuse?--Silverback 19:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Silverback, first, reread my comments. Those were Michael Snow's words, not mine. Nevertheless, by no means was he anywhere close to casting doubt on Kbdank71's integrety. Instead, he was calling one particular action of his a mistake. Second, regarding why I did not contact every voter after reopening the discussion, no one suggested it at the time. One of the first people I did contact (if not the first), though, was Kbdank71-- one of the keep voters. Third, I will not respond to your final comment, which is yet another personal attack. 172 | Talk 19:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice they were Snow's comments. Note also that he didn't state that the action was a mistake, but that it was a mistake for Kbdank71 to be the one to do it. I'd see his point if it wasn't an open vote where everyone could see they were counted correctly. Note, that Snow did not say that you acted correctly. Please stop accusing me of insulting the community, that is just a personal attack, and one that you would have to strain to prove, just as you had to strain to take personal offence at abstract comments on Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters--Silverback 23:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I know those articles, of course. I think I voted for them on WP:FAC, and I don't recognize Silverback's description of them. Silverback, I believe that you speak in good faith, your tone convinces me. But for my part I can't believe anybody's conscience was ever convicted by one-eyed and unfair attacks like those you level against 172 on WP:VFU and continue to level here on my page. In any case his conscience is not your business. You've made it clear that you dislike not only his editing, but his ideology, himself, and what you guess or believe about his private life. So what, really? You're an experienced editor, you know Wikipedia is no place for airing opinions about those things. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." If a fellow editor were to suffer, in your opinion, a "breakdown in moral restraint" (not that I've seen any sign of it), it's not something you have to fix.

I don't think their conscience is convicted right away, and certainly not if the attacks are unfair. But if upon reflection they realize that "attacks" could be substantiated much more than their friends might realize and that the community as a whole might not see their behavior as blameless. They might resolve not to give their "enemies" such "weapons" (difficult to defend behavior) to use against him again.

On the subject of 172, I suspect that 172s character will probably remain what it ever was, but perhaps his behavior will change if he realizes that it may be exposed to the light of day. There are not a lot of people who want to defend what he did that day, even among those who were in favor of the result.--Silverback 23:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"I suspect that 172's character will probably remain what it ever was". This is outrageous. Kindly do not post on my page again if it's impossible for you to do it without snide insinuations against 172 personally. Please follow this link to see where "Comment on content, not on the contributor" comes from, in case you think it's something I made up. Are 172's hypothetical flaws of "character" in some sense content, in your opinion? And incidentally, I don't know him, but I don't see anything in your specific accusations to warrant any attacks on his "character" whatsoever. I don't see why he should put up with continuous abuse from you, either. Just stop it. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Would I have objected to editing the <personal attack removed> to "alleged" or "possible" PA? Well, I was implementing WP:BOLD, which pretty much equates to being, for a moment, judge and jury: I definitely thought and think they were personal attacks, and therefore I wrote in a definite way. I wouldn't have any interest in qualifying them as "alleged PA" (*I* was doing the alleging, I was not neutrally implementing 172's request). "Be bold" is an important wiki principle, and I'd do the same again. That said, an equally important corollary is that I must expect to be disagreed with and edited in turn. The short answer, then: no, I won't change it; but no, I won't object if you change it to "alleged" or whatever, that's fine by me. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RPA

My dear Bishonen, next time you enforce the PRA guideline, would you mind linking diffs in the <remove personal attack> field? I think it would really prove a timesaver, so one can evaluate their relative intensity (or lack thereof) without digging into the revision history. Love, El_C 17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What a good idea, you must be a PA expert. ;-) Sure will, though I don't enforce it much, this may have been the first time ever. As I say on WP:ANI, I normally prefer the more vengeful course of leaving the PAs on the page to embarrass the attacker. Not if there's a request by the victim, though. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

An old vandal returns! A roman a clef is born!

Well, if you've been following the literary game on my user talk page, you'll have spotted a nice roman a clef. (Well, I think it's witty, but what do I know?)

Also, Conquest of Granada got vandalized again in a minor way. What these people have against John Dryden is happily beyond me. I fear that if I understood why they do it, I'd be deranged, instead of merely crazy. Geogre 19:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

yet again

Wow, you lock the page without justification for your actions. Get a life, and a clue, and lose some weight while you're at it. 67.18.109.218 00:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Read my edit summaries, there's justification. Bishonen | talk 00:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I see no justification. I see talk and hyperbole, no factual links to wikipedia policies preventing me from clearing my own talk page. You're just jealous of me and my body. Keep your laws off of my body. 67.18.109.218 00:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep your body off my page if you don't want to get blocked. This page actually isn't your blog either. Bishonen | talk 01:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yet again, all I am asking for is a link to the policy that states that IP addresses can not change their talk page to their own design/liking. Are you able to provide this, or are just making up policy as you go along? 67.18.109.218 01:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)