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)[reply]

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

First 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

.............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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

E-mail

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bogdanov Affair affair

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

AOL Block Removal

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

→ **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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And another!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi. A RfC has been started on Silverback. You were quoted a few times in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback. Apologies in advance if this leads to more unwanted hassle on your part. Thank you for the help so far. 172 | Talk 17:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, and thanks for the certification. I only now noticed that I asked some people about cosigning but not others. That was completely random on my part; for some reason I guess didn't remember to ask about cosigning each time. To answer your question, more than 2 cosigners is fine. Also, please feel free to keep a low profile on the page so as to avoid any further difficulties involving the situation. 172 | Talk 19:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here's a link you may find helpful. Wikipedia:Civility is a good one, too. Incidentally you're not supposed to keep putting back that personal attack against Gamaliel on your userpage, either. Bishonen | talk 01:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Bishonen. I don't see any reason to rush to unblock the page. Obviously some tempers need time to cool. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ten. Bishonen | talk 01:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhalese

Hey, this time I actually tried moving it myself. Could you move Sinhala to Sinhalese language? I've checked EB and they use "Sinhalese" for Sinhalese people and "Sinhalese language" for Sinhala. The latter seems to be the native name.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sho, hun. Done. Bishonen | talk 13:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're a sweetheart. You should have quick look at Talk:Skånska, too. Philip's unilateral decision that we can't oppose has left your vote looking like you actually support "Skånska". We're very close to reaching a proper consensus on simply moving it back to Scanian (linguistics).

Peter ^Isotalo 15:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved my vote, please remind me to never get mixed up in any more of your page move poll nightmares. Going grocery-shopping right now, back in an hour; if you now have a proper consensus and would like me to move the page, let me know. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, nothing that requires action - there was a rough sort of consensus about what Sinhalese really is, so we re-reverted it. Related discussion is, as always, there. Thanks. Greenleaf 10:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The peculiarity of RfC's

So, basically, I agree with the essential assertions of fact on an RfC, but I'm not certifying the request. Further, I have a firm belief that RfC's should not specify sanctions -- that's an ArbCom task -- but should only specify the next step ("refer to arbitration" or "refer to mediation" or "refer to Dr. Demento"). So, where do I sign, if there is no place to sign that says, "Agree with the assertion of fact but not with the various answers?" Geogre 12:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You mean, RedWolf's "outside view" at the bottom of the page specifies sanctions, and the other one recommends mediation, so you don't want to sign—"endorse"— either of those? I don't see anything about sanctions in the sections above. Now you mention it, I wonder if the template has been changed, things seem to come in an odd order, compared to when I read an RfC last. I mean, if you do agree with the assertions of fact, the obvious place for you to sign, before, would have been "Other users who endorse this summary". But now, one asks oneself, what "summary", exactly? Would I be endorsing the whole pile of stuff above my sig? Can I really do that? So I guess the short answer is "I dunno". :-( Bishonen | talk 12:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I feel myelf to be in the same bind. I support your actions here, Bish, but don't really feel I can support the RfC summary or outside views as they stand. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, guys, that was all I wanted. And thank you for the other thing, too, Fil. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with the facts. Dunno what to do about it. Yeah, I guess "Those endorsing the above summary" would be the spot I'm looking for. I'll look again. Meanwhile, I have to figure out something to write about. I guess Edmund Curll, as his article is rotten, and there could even be a way of being fair to him (maybe). That and researching up Ormulum, but I don't know where I can find the time and well-being for it. Geogre 14:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curll might contribute to well-being, Ogre-Pogre. The Relapse is doing wonders for me. Oh, wait, that reminds me, I need to write something on that talkpage right now. Lest it contribute to apoplexy. Dear me, excuse me one minute [runs off at great clip]. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Italy

Sorry no interest to me, I'm not from those parts. You need to find some Italian guy to take a parental interest. Seems like a bit of a rubbish page though considereing it is the "cradle of civilization". Doesn't Geogre have any latin blood? Giano | talk 17:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. And yet, no doubt, you are watching Automobiles of Italy. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I shall reply to you later!!! One of my charming offspring (from that same cradle) has just emailed me lots of fotos (1/2 hour to download) of them enjoying studies, so I must attent to them first. I shall c Giano | talk 17:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MAIL!

Sorry, wasn't watching the mail nor this page. Is all good, relax. Bishonen | talk 23:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Colley Cibber and I still want my 5 pounds

Here it comes, man. I haven't gotten a helper yet, but I will, and so will you. That'll stop your relapse into editing (instead of watching people bicker). Speaking of which, I'm about done with Ormulum now. It's amazing what a few hours in the liberry can do. It's even more amusing that there is another editor of Ormulum -- perhaps the dullest book ever written (see talk:Ormulum). A few rearrangements of the lead, and I'll FAC it. I've done my time with long, well illustrated articles. I'm due a couple of short ones on boring subjects. (Peterborough isn't boring in what it talks about, but I made it seem a lot more coherent and comprehensible in my article than it is. Such is a duty of an encyclopedist, though.) I'm shocked to death to find that I found four or five sources for Ormulum. Really, it is dull. I mean dull. I mean autolobotomy dull. Geogre 01:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frustration

Thanks for your seeing and responding to the junk. Yup when I do the random article trick, at least there are 8 out of 6 (!) US geography articles for every hamlet that ever had a name (ok I'm australian) and at least one 'sneak' self promoting art. I really appreciate your advice, I can now see some zap power for these guys who write a page about themselves just to see how long it stays there(?) and the bleeding obvious repeated vandal inserts. Ta vcxlor 05:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Front page

Congratulations - how nice to see an interesting and well written article gracing the front page. Your many talents never fail to amaze me. Thank you Bishonen for all you do for Wikipedia both seen and unseen. You're a star. Giano | talk 06:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Stellar indeed. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I trust you didn't have a heart attack. Thanks guys, thanks, Geogre. I should be leaving Colley Cibber alone today, and not argue with people, but I just went in and ... did. I thought if it says all day in the Lead that his brash personality gained him the laureateship, it makes it hard for other people to do useful copyediting thereabouts, and I really would like to get the advantage of all the fresh eyes. Plenty of good edits are being added, and plenty of people seem to be watching for vandalism. But never mind about that old article, who cares, what do you think of my promotional message on this page? Courtesy of Alkivar. I can't stop admiring it. I hope the text BLINKS in your browsers, the way it does in mine? Bishonen | talk 11:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why, I'm dazzled and a-mazed, of course. It's such that one thinks about perhaps using <blink> blink </blink> on the FA template itself. I think we should get some slide whistles in sound files and have those as part of the link to "Featured Article," too (rising tone, of course, with the falling tone being used for FARC).

Have you had other people doing up FA's in other languages of articles you've done in .en yet? Good old Jonathan Wild is now FA in three languages, I think, and someone just FA'd Oroonoko in French. Makes me wish I'd paid attention in school and actually learned to read a language other than Good Ol' Boy.

Needles to say, I'm going to take a look in on Cooley Cibber today. Geogre 13:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bells and whistles, that's the idea. I've looked at Jonathan Wild in German, didn't I tell you? Most convincing-looking. I had quite a conversation with the translator, admired her version of John Vanbrugh, and poked about on their FAC page, back in January. I didn't quite vote for John Vanbrugh, even I have some shame, but I commented and interfered. In English, of course. My German vocabulary is about 50 words. The elegant German on the Benutzer:Bishonen page isn't mine, it's a translation kindly provided by dab. :-) Ubiquitously yours, Bishonen | talk 17:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...yes, nice article, maybe too long! Brief point on archiving--I don't think it's necessary to archive simply everything on a talk page, especially with quick and very simple notes that could have just as easily been conducted on a user talk page. We could archive every version of the article itself, but the version control handles that for us—similarly, I think only a discussion which someone might reasonably refer to should be preserved. Archives should ideally—if people are willing to take the time—only include those things which will ever be considered relevant in the future, refactored in a way that helps people get the thrust. Though what's important to keep in a talk page is subjective, so is what's important to keep in an article, and I think a unified methodology between the two is desirable. A little quote from my user page: once a discussion on a topic gets straightened out, you can refactor it so that newcoming readers avoid the confusing dead-ends that people took on their way to achieving consensus. I know not everyone shares the methodology, but I just think this particular one was a cut and dry case, best left to the version history, that's what it's for. More rants on Wiki Theory on my user page...best... Metaeducation 19:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree to differ about the axing of (mainly) my post on Talk, Meta. I don't think the fat lady sang yet, far from it, as this is the great Day of Editing for Colley. His Lead section may well get more copyedits, and the Talk discussion more additions, provided it's still there. I hope you saw the blinkenlighten on your way here? :-) I'm not sure they work in IE. On an unrelated note, have you thought of joining in some of the discussions at WP:FAC, if you've got the time? Regards, Bishonen | talk 20:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding FAC...read it a bit but I think I'm happy to accept what comes down the pipe...even, uh, Wario. In other words, I take for granted that any topic is interesting, so most of the FAC critique process involving the selection isn't an issue to me. (Although I secretly hope to live to see Time Cube make the cut). But if there was a page that gives an advance warning of publication, so I could tinker before the selected page goes live—but after it's been decided that it absolutely will—I'd prefer that so any mistakes I make get caught sooner. I'm not seeking to modify or correct content since I'm generally out of my field on these, I just want to make the things flow. But the candidate tag is used too often for me to be able to justify the time. Metaeducation 20:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you should ask, I was just thinking about sending you this link, so you can do your copyedit in advance and see it on the Main Page. I suggest you tinker well ahead of the publication date, as I'm not sure how early Raul654, the Featured Article Director, finalizes the main page. In fact, if you have large-scale tinkering plans, for instance shortening a Lead section fairly drastically (as you did with CC), it would probably be a good idea to drop a line on Raul first in any case. Note that the texts on that page are already slightly edited, perhaps shortened, in relation to the live Lead sections as seen in the articles. Also, of course, there's a list of all Featured Articles (as opposed to mere FA candidates). That's here. The bolded titles on the page have already been featured on the MP, so the unbolded ones are your men. In principle, they will (nearly) all go on the MP eventually, though nobody knows when. The advantage of using that list, even if it's dauntingly long, is that you'd be editing the articles directly, and the main contributors will be watching them, so you'll get input. That's not so likely to happen with the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2005 page. Best, Bishonen | talk 21:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

SlimVirgin offered to delete it. I don't want it deleted. It is evidence of bad faith behavior by its initiator. The ArbCom has now accepted my RfAr against its non-existent author. Thank you for your support. Maybe it should be archived, but not deleted. If you have studied computer science, I will explain how deleting anything may raise issues of referential integrity. If not, then please try to understand that I might have a point. If disk space is cheap, nothing should ever be deleted, but some things should be hidden or masked. Robert McClenon 01:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, that was rhetoric, my reference to deleting or archiving it: an expression of surprise and distaste at the nasty thing. Bishonen | talk 01:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sic Bar

thanks for the edits, that does seem a better layout. What do you think, can you understand it, does it make sense - is it finished? can't log in for some reason Giano

Reply by e-mail. Bishonen | talk 14:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

emailed back. I'm about through with it, and want it finished and wrapped up. Thanks Giano | talk 16:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Off to bed - it's all yours!

Thanks for the copyedit, that looks a lot better, I'll just tweak a little when you've finished, let me know when you want to go in again. Have a nice day Giano | talk 07:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One would reply even sooner if it didn't take 25 minutes to get to the bottom of this page. I don't know. I think it's supposed to be Baroque with a capital B, we had all of thi with Palladian and palladian, I've no idea we don't capitalize like some people, I always think upper case is a little pompous myself - who do we know who would know? Geogre? - ALoan? Giano | talk 18:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then why ask? Giving birth is very stressful for me, no one knows the pains I suffer at these moments Giano | talk 18:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Baroque would have many baroque artworks (noun vs. adjective) would be my guess. I don't Capitalize with perfect Regularity, because I read 18th century Literature. Geogre 18:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's 18th century architecture! I personally don't see why it needs a capital at all, it's only a noun, we are not German (at least I'm not), it's not a place, person or named after a person like say Palladian was after Palladio (who was a person) or Romanesque is after Rome (which is a place) - are you getting my drift, in fact it's names after "barroco" a foreign word (Ithink Portugese) meaning a deformed pearl - sod is! some-one will know different what ever we think. Where's ALoan he'll know tha answer Giano | talk 20:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC}

replied! Giano | talk 20:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary to hand (Little OED) lists "baroque" with minuscule initial "b" as:

1 a. ornate and exuberant in style, esp. of 17th–18th-c. European architecture and music. 2 n. baroque style.

(Note the delightful hyphenation in "17th–18th-c.".) However, as our article on Baroque states, I think it makes sense to distinguish things that are simply ornate but not related to the Baroque period ("baroque") from things that are in related to the Baroque period ("Baroque", using Baroque as a proper noun, like the Stone Age, or Arts and Crafts).

On the other hand, my dictionary doesn't mention Palladian or palladian at all, and only lists Byzantine with majuscule initial "B" as:

a. of Byzantium or E. Roman Empire; of architectural etc. style developed in Eastern Empire; complicated, underhand.

But I can't see why you couldn't say that something that was complicated, without any sensible connection with the Eastern Empire, was "byzantine" with minuscule "b". -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is all far too confusing, you sound as unsure as the rst of us ALoan, thanks anyway - So as it's (still just) my page I say Sicilian baroque - er.....eccept the irritating and trecherous Prof. Blunt says Sicilian Baroque, and Baroque allthrough his book 0h drat the man - perhaps he's wrong too. Giano | talk 13:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello my name is Giacomo and I am dyslexic" as none of you will be surprised to learn! I have just had a thorough look at the reference books, without exception the English ones all have a capital B in all instances when referring to architecture. So I'll change it - OK everyone . Giano | talk 14:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination and kind words - a disappointing start - I suspect he may not be Sicilian!. In case of the unlikely event anyone else is reading this - "

Hello Campers! we Sicilians love all tourist, its a wonderful place, the sun shines all day, we haven't had an earthquake for yonks, and Etna is so well behaved she's just a pussy cat. We are all warm and friendly. You don't have to be rich we love the poor tourists too - just come, a warm welcome in the sun is assured" PS I've just sent a short email dearest Bishonen. Giano | talk 19:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Why I don't sign off:

Mainly, I don't agree with an NPA policy. I agree with it as a guideline and as a cause of refactoring talk pages (if links to archives are provided only).
Any time we get into "personal attack," we have to interpret, and that's the pisser. Is it the victim's assessment, the speaker's intent, or the mob's evaluation? Each of those has big problems. Uninvolved people can generally agree when something is a PA, but the moment "the community" answers, then it gets down to who has friends and who has helped whom in the past.
Disrupting Wikipedia really ought to be enough, and personal attacks do that. As a subspecies of "disruption," a person can and should go over to arbitration or mediation for being an insulting jerk. Yodler, for example, was making negative content. Sophie, too, is making negative content.
The problem with trolls is that they generate a lot of discussion, but all the discussion is about something other than the purpose of the website. If they can get a fight over brain death going, they have accomplished their jobs. Those users who generate insults (and those who cry wolf repeatedly, claiming that they're being attacked) are diverting the energies of the project onto an endless (because endlessly argued) debate over how insulting they are or how wounded. That, to me, is a reason to mediate, arbitrate, or annihilate, not the nastiness or sweetness of some words here or there. (If someone says something awful, but it doesn't get a tizzy going, I wouldn't want to see the effort of an RfC. It's only disruption that should be penalized.

Anyway, that's why I'm not getting into the insult RfC's. Geogre 21:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Disruption" is quite a vague concept to me. Anyway, nobody need get into those RfCs any more, the subjects are highlighting their worst editing habits on them more effectively than even your eloquence could. Bishonen | talk 02:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "disruption" is vague, but I think it's far more empirical than "personal attack." They both require interpretation, but the latter is a question of affect, and the former is one of effect. We can pretty easily figure out if some monkey's antics have caused that monkey to stop doing anything useful and/or caused others to do less useful stuff. That's why I brought up Yodler and Sophie. They were both time sinks for everyone else, and neither of them wrote anything of serious worth. Most of the former's edits were removing things he didn't like, and all of the latter's edits were Mobius strip comments. On the other hand, Tuba saying that Giano had attacked him (when Giano had very much baited him but not attacked him) led to a lot of smoke and hostility, but nothing was decided. He has a lot of friends, and so the comments and "votes" on wp:an/i and elsewhere were all about emotions and not about statements, intent, etc. I think that any editor whose work leads to folks talking about the edits instead of the subject of them is, to some small degree, disrupting, and this includes those who protest as well as those who provoke. This is why I've always had some sympathy with the "act definitively" sentiment and with the idea of a greater hierarchy of power. It's only some sympathy, though, and not agreement. Geogre 14:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilian Baroque

I'm not sure what I was thinking with that first change you mentioned. I meant to write something else, but my fingers typed that instead. As for the split infinitives, I understand and will try to avoid needless infinitive unsplitting. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 02:59

File the following under "fools rush in where angels fear to tread": I'm starting to do a little grammar scan and sweep of the article, too. I'm going to vote to support, but there are some rough edges that need smoothing. I may not be the man for the job, but I might as well give it a shot. Geogre 03:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

Any particular time? 3:00/9:00 is good, but I'm flexible, as I'm going to be grading today. That's my whole task, and watching Ormulum go. (Your comment was the best: Orm sent it to cleanup, and, of course, it didn't get off the list; at least Walter didn't just underline all the nouns.) Geogre 12:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, did you mean my 3:00—just about now—or my 9:00 PM? I'll go with the latter of that's OK (that's 3:00 PM to you), because I want to go out in the 2-minute daylight window round about now. Sometimes I think it's gonna make all my hair fall out or something if I never see the sun. But a couple of hours earlier will work just as well, please post if that's better. Oh how I hate grading. And I just found an essay from a web essay mill, too. :-( Bishonen | talk 13:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant 3:00 my time, 9:00 your time. Grading is the bane of the profession. I'm going to start any minute now. (Actually, at noon.) 2-3 hours is all I can manage at a time, so your call will punctuate it perfectly. Geogre 15:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm helping

With regard to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2, if you have a clear unambiguous answer to FW's question "does this "all out of good faith" post from SlimVirgin, followed by her sudden involvement in the Bensaccount RfC constitute turning wikipedia into a battlefield?" then providing that answer might be a good idea. On the other hand if you have no such clear unambiguous answer, maybe you should ignore this paragraph altogether. Just trying to help. WAS 4.250 11:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've already replied to FW, basically saying that I won't answer "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" questions, and asking a more straightforward and urgent question of him, about his own behavior wrt the "endorsement" of my outside view. After all, it is an RfC on his conduct, and that aspect seems to get a little overwhelmed sometimes. I'm not saying FW is overwhelming it on purpose--he has every right to defend himself--but I wanted to bring it back up on the table. I do believe FW would do himself a favour if he focused more on his own conduct and less on SlimVirgin's, and if he made good faith attempts to respond to comments on it from the community. Responses by ad hominem insinuation only make him look bad. Bishonen | talk 11:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. While your reply to FW indicated you are not replying to a hypothetical (and the question I quoted is NOT a hypothetical), it appears the actual and quite sensible real reason is that you do not wish to be drawn into the side issue of "Was someone else just as bad" with him in this context. FW would serve himself better if he promised to act more friendly and stopped defending himself with "I'm only doing to them what they are doing to me" type arguments. WAS 4.250 14:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell!

Who is this person User talk:Justinc he's threatening to block me! wants to delete one of the images from JV. It seems to me that all sorts are becoming administrators now. Its sad really isn't it. Giano 20:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]