Jump to content

User talk:Bishonen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pluvia (talk | contribs) at 02:37, 20 July 2013 (→Requesting help). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


How to pronounce my name in real Japaneseⓘ


Admin motto of the week

"If mistakes were made, memory helps us remember that they were made by someone else."

--Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)

?


Now tell me about this, because I was wondering about it a while. Warrington (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think Drmies was saying you were an expert in the fields of architecture (like the great user:Giano) and Swedish candy (like me, though only in the sense that I introduced the delicious salt sill to the article Swedish fish). I was more trying to amuse Drmies, who is probably aware how fast friends Giano and I are. You know, implying that you are really our combined sock. Not so funny when you spell it out, I suppose. :-) Well, so do you have a proper deep Swedish understanding of salmiak? Only then will I acknowledge your candy expertise. (Furthermore, how long does it take to make a hafspaj? What's hafs about it?) Bishonen | talk 16:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
This is the liquorice blackfish.
This lutefisk in a Norwegian market is no relation!
Norwegian fish, 17 May dinner in the United States of lutefisk, rutabaga, meatballs, cranberries, and lefse.
  • Never mind items of clothing worn on the feet. I am in the dark on this... Dark. Yes I do have a proper deep Swedish understanding of salmiak. Do you have a proper deep understanding of lets say poppy seeds or polkagris? Hafs is a sort of Swedish mess. Hafsig, och paj. Hafspajen (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know what hafs means, I'm Swedish (how else would I have the true deep appreciation of salmiak). I think I've even heard terms like hafspaj and hafskaka before. What I meant to ask was: how quick and hafsig does the baking process have to be for the result to qualify as a hafspaj? And in what sense are you a hafspaj? The mind boggles. I mean, I'm admittedly not a bishounen, but still. (Poppy seeds? There's an unusual criterion for Swedishness. Do you mean on a loaf of bergis? I appreciate them.) Bishonen | talk 14:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Probably very quick, somewhat like Mary Poppins. Actually this Hafspaj word was an accidental alfapet word, meaning nothing, when placing words besides each other, and strange words may emerge. Me, Hafspaj, just for fun. Alfapet is the Swedish name for the game Scrabble. Never tasted a hafspaj. Bergis looks good, thought I newer taster any.Where can you buy them? Any place in Lund? Now wait a minute, you can speak Swedish?? Hafspajen (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Thinks about it. Reluctantly.] I suppose I can. On a good day. On the rare occasions I visit the Swedish Wikipedia, I even do. But I'm not crazy about getting translation requests (have done too much translating for a living), so don't tell anybody! Bishonen | talk 16:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Why am I 'The Great User Giano' getting tacky little anonymous messages saying that my name has been mentioned here; it's like having Big Brother listening at the keyhole. I don't know how you Nordics can eat that disgusting fish; I should think the cold has played havoc with your taste buds and digestive systems.  Giano  18:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than that, Excellency; if you tick the appropriate box in 'Preferences', you can also get email notifications from Big Brother whenever somebody mentions you. (Winston Smith had it easy.)
Of even greater concern though, Chère, is that Fastily's rampant bot has tagged your blackfish as suitable for moving to Commons (after which it gets an Ncd template and soon after is CSD F8 deleted from here). Did you want to drop a {{Keep local}} template on there? --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If so, you better hurry, because the keep local template is up for deletion. Not that it has a chance of actually getting deleted, but why let the facts get in teh way of tasty drama? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[After conflict]::::::::Well it's a bloody nuisance if we can't have a chat about another editor without him being automatically notified. We shall have to start being like those irritating, church-going women who say: "if you can't say anything nice about a person, it's better to say nothing at all" which is probably very true, but does make life exceedingly dull - even in a place like Wikipedia where some irksome little tit is always earwigging and anxious to run off to ANI saying Giano (or whoever) has been uncivil. Now, I had better go and plead to save keep local template - those morons on Commons can't be trusted with an image.  Giano  18:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually not so bad, Giano: you only get notified if someone makes a Wikilink to your user page, so it's going to be pretty uncommon unless someone is actually trying to get your attention. Simply typing out the user name won't alert you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What good news that is; I shall remember not to link. Now, I only have irksome little tits to worry about.  Giano  18:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged the File:Salt.sill.jpeg with {{keep local}}. It's a very valuable addition the Swedish fish article, and precious to me because it's the only one (?) of my uploads that I actually, and effortfully, photographed myself. Giano, I suspect you're falling into Automatic Mediterranean Prejudice Mode here without even clicking on my links. This isn't rotted Baltic herring or marinated matjessill or indeed lutfisk, it's delicious liquorice candy. Mmmmm… [/me falls into a reverie, then runs out to buy some.] Bishonen | talk 19:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • Effortfully, eh? That's two words today that I've tripped across that had me reaching for a dictionary (the other being the verb "inactivate," which I was sure was a typo for "deactivate"). Nice. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say, my English vocabulary is a Lesefrucht, strongly nourished by Victorian novels. Oh, a redlink? It's German for fruit of reading. Good word! "Effortfully" (along with Lesefrucht) may well be one of my ten most frequently used words. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Swedish fish? BlueSapphires (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish fish. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Yum. BlueSapphires (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hemerocallis 'Kwanzo'

Wow, I go away for a few months and everything has changed! No more orange bar? Just a little red blob? Does it work if I mention myself with the little bracket things? User:Tex I guess I'll find out soon! BTW, Bish, there's a new Baby Tex on the earth. Mama and baby are fine. Just thought you'd want to know. See ya around! Tex (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did want to know, congratulations, that's great, Tex! Mentioning yourself is no good, I think! Does the new Baby Tex have a Baby Tex II account yet? Don't look like it! Bishonen | talk 21:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Hee hee! Last time I had an addition to the family, I created a sock (Baby Tex) and he got indef-blocked! I see my new little one caused a kerfuffle without me even creating a sock for him. It's another boy, by the way. The wife is freaking out about having to live in the country in Texas with 3 boys (me being the 3rd boy)! Heh. Thanks for all the well wishes from the Bishpack! Tex (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, poor unfortunate Recent Changes patroller (or so I suppose), stumbling unawares into organized wikicrime territory! Quite a relief to see they got away with a mere fish-hitting. Lots of boys, great… I hope db's latest babygang recruit gets creates an account soon, because Pod is dying to shower him with fishapod plushies. Getting any sleep at night? Bishonen | talk 15:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
A Bishapod plushie really would be adorable. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Big strong admins need plushies too! bishapod talk to your inner fish 10:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Your suggestion above for the new baby's account is now blue. Send Pod over with the plushies!!! Not much sleep, no. Little booger likes to cry! Tex (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh noes, you created it? And now we wait for him to be blocked in a cloud of plushies! Shall I alert User:HJ Mitchell? Bishonen | talk 19:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

My favorite legal-decision of the week, cited in the New York Times Sunday Magazine:

Some might look at the silky wording of IP Nav's letter to Renaissance and see a close question; this court, however, sees an unmistakable and intentional warning shot across the bow. The actual message is pellucid to any patent litigator, so that IP Nav's use of apophasis is disingenuous and unavailing. Remember Mark Antony's funeral oration in Julius Caesar? That's how an experienced business executive or lawyer would view IP Nav's assertions that "we are focused on addressing these issues without the need for costly and protracted litigation" and "our client's preferred approach is to conclude licensing discussions without resorting to litigation. We hope you share this objective." The implied "or else!" oozes from this letter like lye from lutefisk. To paraphrase an observation attributed to Anton Chekhov, you don't hang a gun over the mantle in Act I unless someone is going to fire it in Act III.

— [1]

Editnotice...

...is up; you can see it if you try to edit the page, and you can preview/change it if you like at Template:Editnotices/Page/Emmelie de Forest. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's beautiful. 1st of July sounds just right. Bishonen | talk 17:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
thank you for all your work with Emmelie de Forest. couldn't have solved the problem without you! -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to thank you Bishonen for the help with the de Forest article. I seems to be in a more stable condition right now. Hopefully people will not add the material until further information is known. If ever, in my opinion the entire thing sounds weird to add. Amyway, Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, guys, and thanks for your help. The article is currently protectively swaddled by PC2 + the rather tight-lipped edit notice, so there's not much strolling idjits can do. By the time we remove those protections, the genealogical interest (oh, gee... how can people even care?) will hopefully have died down. Mind you, I'm sorry to have to have the pending changes, because I'm sure there are many good sensible users out there who would like to be able to update relevant details without the hassle. But I realised it had to be when <ahem, never mind who> popped right back up with more reverting and fatuous comments about "harmless fun facts". Anybody who is now inconvenienced by PC can thank that user for it, because it was the last straw for me. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
You could have just easily participated in finding consensual phrasing instead of spending much more of your and our time & energy "Streisanding" this trifle. --Trofobi (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but unfortunately I was just too hysterical.[2] You're the one who's been wasting everybody's time by asking the same questions over and over again after they have been amply clarified.[3] Frankly, Trofobi, I'd stop going on about it if I were you, and give people a chance to forget the role you played. You don't seem to realise how lucky you were not to be blocked. Bishonen | talk 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
You're massively exaggerating. --Trofobi (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On behalf of Project Eurovision, I would also like to extend the thanks and appreciation to Bishonen for the hard work and dedication in protecting the article. It is acts like this that are a shining example of a true Wikipedian at their best. Wesley♦Mouse 16:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Wes, you're massively exaggerating.:-)
@Trofobi: please stop editwarring on my page to alter my post, or you may get blocked. Not by me in this instance, but many admins watch this page. And talk about Streisanding… sheesh. I tactfully refrained from mentioning your name above, but you had to come here and publicise your fatuousness where 476 talkpage stalkers can see it. Fame. Bishonen | talk 19:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen, your patience with this user is to be admired. But at some point enough is enough, and that goes for both users that is rude towards you. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All admins are used to rudeness, it comes with the territory, and isn't really to be wondered at when users find themselves unexpectedly stymied by the use or threat of admin tools. It's human. I find it harder to have patience with an admin who sabotages me. :-( Bishonen | talk 22:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Just wanted to send you this cute kitty here. Happy towel day. --Trofobi (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never witnessed a user who begs to be blocked like you Trofobi. Do you really want Bishonen to grant you your wish? Or are you just simply rude.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is intended as de-escalation effort - if you, Bishonen, conceive this as rude then please accept my apology and remove or reword it. --Trofobi (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. Thanks for the cute cat, I took it in a friendly way. I was just about to answer BabbaQ myself — I think he must have misunderstood. If the cat is some sort of trolling or sarcasm, it's too deeply buried for me. :-) Bishonen | talk 19:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Emmelie de Forest

Then fully protect it. Your choices are unprotected, semi-protection, PC/1, PC/1 with semi-protection, and full protection. Not PC/2. I would expect you to know that, and I assumed that you had simply mismoused instead of consciously defying consensus and using PC/2 on an article.—Kww(talk) 21:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus would that be? I used my admin discretion and used a protection alternative that's available to admins via a drop-down menu. I wonder why it is? Could it be because of the way the RFC is going? What's the consensus at the moment, or hadn't you noticed? You wade into a difficult situation at a sensitive BLP without even bothering with a note on the talkpage, or a note to me, and apparently without any research. If you have any sense you'll revert yourself. Bishonen | talk 21:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I soon think it is time to do something radical concerning the protection of this article. The way users are treating you Bishonen and the article is simply not OK.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no discussion ever on the use of PC/2 that ended in a consensus to use it. Hell, I don't dislike it: I think it actually stands a chance of being useful, while PC/1 is little more than a petty annoyance. If you think the article needs more protection, I'll upgrade the protection to full. I'm not pulling your chain when I said that I thought this was a simple mistake on your part: the log comment of "The contest is currently ongoing. I think we won't have any more drive-by IP edits today." seemed compatible with semi-protection or PC/1. —Kww(talk) 22:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, what? I said that when I semiprotected the article for three hours on 18 May, just time enough for the ongoing contest to end, you know?[4] Click here to see my comment when I actually configured Pending Changes on 21 May: "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy" was what I wrote as the reason that time. Did you really look that carelessly before you pushed the button? You didn't look at the talkpage at all, I'm sure, or you could hardly have missed that my PC2 was a deliberate action. I discussed it with WesleyMouse there, as I did on this page of mine, above. I won't bother to dig out the diffs of any of that for you, because you've made it clear that you're too busy to read any of this stuff, including the protection history.
I can't make head or tail of your suggestion of Pending Changes 1 combined with semiprotection, by the way. Semi prevents IPs and new users from editing. PC1 means that when they edit anyway, they have to be reviewed…? Really… ?
Anybody who reverts your revert of my protection will of course be "wheel-warring". That's one of the reasons it's worth taking a few minutes to think (and to fucking read) before you put yourself at the "second mover advantage." Fullprotect if you like, but please don't suppose or state that you're doing it to accommodate me. It's a very drastic move, and I'm against it. Bishonen | talk 22:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Anyone can feel free to change the protection state to unprotected, semi-protection, PC/1, PC/1 with semi-protection, or full protection. I won't raise a peep. I noticed the article in the list of PC/2 articles and looked at the protection log. Want me to say I fucked up? Fine, I fucked up. But the path out of here is not to reinstate PC/2. It isn't one of the choices available to either of us.—Kww(talk) 22:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you fucked up and you're fucking up again. You simply repeat your "PC/1 with semi-protection" with no concern for my comment on that combination? OK, apparently you're also too busy to read my posts. I guess I'm done. Do return to your more important tasks. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Didn't notice that I had included it when I cut/paste from my earlier task. You're right that PC/2 with semi-protection is a meaningful combination, but PC/1 is not. Doesn't get us out of this position, though. Like I said, I won't object to you changing the protection level to anything that doesn't include PC/2.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've got it, feel free to stop saying it. Having slept on it, I guess I have a little more. I'm sorry it's so dreadfully long, you'd better just read every third line.
Have you ever thought of taking an admin break? I did last year, and it was useful to be reminded of how the other half live. You might find it refreshing too. When you applied for adminship, you probably weren't thinking "I want to be an admin because I want to rush around enforcing "rules" I don't even believe in and speedread other people's uninteresting yapping", did you? Or "I want to steamroll other admins and get them thinking about handing in their tools"? There's nothing like that in any of your RFAs.
I performed an admin action after thinking about it for half a day, and you set your judgment above mine, after about 30 seconds of consideration, by the look of it. When I asked, above, what consensus you were talking about, you prevaricated like some politician by saying "There's been no discussion ever on the use of PC/2 that ended in a consensus to use it." That's hardly the point, if you're going to enforce anti-PC2 as a "rule" and to accuse me of "consciously defying consensus" in using it. The point is instead, has there ever been a discussion on the use of PC/2 that ended in a consensus to not use it? Not that I know of. It's enabled, it's usable. As you're aware, there's an ongoing RFC about it, which currently stands at 92 Support and 50 Oppose. You fucked up, on your own admission and partly because you misread the log, and now you're seemingly too stiff-necked to un-fuck up. Is that because you're too good to instate the dread PC/2 (because of a non-existent "rule" against it)? You should have been too good to remove it, certainly in the high-handed way you did. Not too late to do the right thing, you know. Bishonen | talk 12:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Princess Marcella Borghese

Hi Bishonen! The page you edited was modified again by ExcuseMeNYC. Can you do something about it please?? Thank you!! Juliet55 (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I keep editing this page and will continue to edit it as long as incorrect and irrelevant information is posted. This is a page for a person, not a company. Who owns Borghese cosmetics is not relevant to Marcella's history as she is no longer living or affiliated with the company. It is a separate entity and is owned by Georgette Mosbacher. Several attempts were made to post this information with references cited to prove Georgette is the owner and they were removed. But since this page is NOT for the Borghese cosmetics company, it is not relevant anyway. Please stop referencing the current management and ownership if Borghese cosmetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExcuseMeNYC (talk • contribs) 09:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Crossposting my reply to User talk:ExcuseMeNYC to increase the chance that the new user sees it.)
Hi, ExcuseMeNYC, and welcome to Wikipedia! You make reasonable points about the text, but please do look up the help page Help:Edit summary that I linked to in my message. Edit summaries are used to inform other editors of the reason for an edit, and it's confusing to repeatedly remove material without an edit summary to say why you're removing it. Edit summaries for each edit will appear in the history of a page. I do understand that these Wikipedia terms and technicalities are difficult for new users, but if you take a look at the history of Princess Marcella Borghese here, you will see how that works, with the edit summaries of my edits and (mostly) also of Juliet's edits. Your edits only have the automatically generated section name and nothing about any reason. That's why I reverted you.
If the explanation for a removal is too complicated for the limited space of an edit summary, you can simply write "See Talk" there, and post an explanation on the article's talkpage, which will have the advantage of starting a discussion about it.
May I ask if you're related to the IPs 24.215.249.118 and 24.215.248.86, who edited the article to add the Georgette Mosbacher-related material? Bishonen | talk 13:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Addendum: I've been digging around in the article history, but it's extremely difficult to find the references you speak of that purportedly show Mosbacher owns Borghese Cosmetics, since the person who added them (you?) didn't use any edit summaries either. :-( Please post those references right here so I can take stock of them. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Again, this is NOT a company page. It is for a person. The only reason Revson and Revlon are relevant is because it is how she created her line and it was when she was alive, therefore its relevant to her history. Who owns the company now does not need to be mentioned on her page as she is deceased and no longer involved with this separate entity. All that needs to be known is that she started a line and was involved with it until her death. If anything, you can even remove that the line is now known as simply Borghese and based in NYC and simply keep that she was involved with the line "named after her" until her death. I will not be adding the Georgette Mosbacher references as they are not relevant to Marcella's history and you people keep removing them EVEN with numerous references cited, which is rather childish and not consistent with this websites protocols. ExcuseMeNYC (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting in touch. From now on, please let's simply keep the discussion on Talk:Princess Marcella Borghese. I will reply to you there. Bishonen | talk 23:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
<post moved to section "Cosmetics" below. Bishonen | talk 08:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC).>[reply]

Mens Parking

Hallo Bishonen, retrospective is about TV shows giving overviews about the year passed by in late december. OK? Thanks for your help. Serten (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the deffender of the Swedish cuisine! Don't let the Swedish cuisine be too weird. Hafspajen, alias Warrington (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Wow, big! [Hastily gobbles the entire kransekake before Darwinbish can parachute in and steal it. Takes some extra insulin.] Thank you, very nice! Bishonen | talk 14:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
This is a cookie? If they have cookies that big, what are their cakes like? More to the point, where do I get one?!! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently in Rochester, Minnesota.[5] :-) Everything's big in America! Bishonen | talk 14:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The cakes are this big![6] & [7]!! Hafspajen (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetics

Have you worked out what is going on on that page? I haven’t, except that the recent SPA edits must be driven by the litigation that’s going on between the current owner of the brand and the reality TV person who is a scion of the storied family. But I have no idea why one of them is trying to include things (which fail to interest me) in the article or why the other is trying to exclude them. Tedious business. Ian Spackman (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I sort of know what's going on, but it's strange that the small differences between one sentence and another on the page can be important to anybody. As you say, tedious. I'm hoping the SPA has vented and shouted enough and will be happy to have the last word, so I'm refraining from arguing with them further. The state of the article doesn't seem horrible now. Bishonen | talk 05:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Oops, I didn't see the latest developments. That does it, I'm blocking them. Bishonen | talk 05:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I can see you love to ban people who disagree with your personal opinion. How is that being a good administrator or editor? I have NO agenda regarding the Marcella Borghese page other than to not have it contain information that cannot be proven or that is inaccurate. Every point I have made as been valid and you are obviously trying to bully me into submission. You need to stop making this about your own point of view and follow the guidelines of your own website. ExcuseMeNYC (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are two subjects I'm utterly uninterested in, they're cosmetics companies and noble houses. I have no personal opinion about either of them. I have blocked you indefinitely for disrupting the article and importing battles from the outside world into Wikipedia. Take them to the appropriate venues. That's not here. Bishonen | talk 08:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Find-a-grave = spam?

Re: [8]. I was wondering - is it really spam? I have not dealt much with this site, but I found it useful once or twice for burial refs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That site has generated an enormous amount of "discussion". One example (not fit for the faint-of-heart) is here. Searching that page for "Links to previous discussions" shows several other links. There has been massive spamming of the site, with many of the targets being pretty useless as far as WP:EL goes. There's always an opportunity to argue for a particular link being an exception, but it would need to be a pretty good argument IMHO. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been a little seduced by the opportunity for a shit hot edit summary. :-) Anyway I agree with John; I tend to remove it pretty much on sight, though I suppose it can be useful on some (rare) occasions. Copernicus is a good illustration of how uncritically it's spammed, I presume by a bot looking for bios and the bare fact of the subject being dead. There are four paragraphs already in the article about Copernicus's funerary adventures, as of course you're aware, Piotrus. I've seen a documentary about them. Don't need no fucking crappy find-a-grave. P.S. C-class, really? Well, I only engaged with the external links. You got plans for it? Bishonen | talk 10:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the grave story, pun perhaps intended :) C-class, yes. For years I've been to scared to tackling this mess - it has been ground zero for a number of trolls and the surrounding circus. But I have finally begun tackling this; for now I've started on cleaning up the references, which hopefully will not attract too much flame. Any help appreciated, it is very much a core encyclopedic topic, with a high number of views per day. I'd like to get it to GA, through I am not sure if I'll be able to deal with the near constant revert warring between some editors, sigh. Perhaps you could chip in to their page discussions, and help to wrangle some form of consensus? I think the latest phase of the talk bickering is concerning the (grossly too short, IMHO) lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because I'm famous for my tact and finesse. <sarcasm> I might be more useful staying aloof from editing so I can sweep in as an uninvolved admin if one's needed. (Amongst my many and varied excuses for avoiding work, that's my favourite.) Guess how much crap the article would be accumulating if I hadn't semiprotected it? Nobody quarrels like a patriotic IP, and I noticed that in Copernicus you had also had the astrologers visiting. :-( Bishonen | talk 10:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I know nothing about Find a Grave, but its bio of Copernicus is amateurish and contains several errors. Thanks for removing the citation to this drivel, which is clearly not a reliable source.—Finell 09:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Look at the pictures on this wiki: http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Mir%C3%B3?uselang=cs. Something like this would be needed on Miró. Eh?. Would you , will you.. Hafspajen (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The photo on the left in the "cariera" (career) section of the above article is of the monumental tapestry that hangs in the Miro Museum in Barcelona, which he created specifically for display in that museum. I just uploaded my own photo of that piece to Commons -- here [9] -- so feel free to use it if so inclined. I also have some sculpture photos (same museum) if interested. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Going by those image pages, the Romanian Wikipedia doesn't seem to insist on any license or source whatever for locally uploaded images. But en.wiki does, so, sorry, I don't rightly see as how I can. It sounds like Doc Joe's your man. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
So that!'s the problem. . But then you cannot trust those guys, Rumanian art galleries. If we were fake , where would we hang, in a Rumanian art gallery… (P. G. Wodehouse). So I guess the Doctor is the man...

Hafspajen (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this interest you at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/English_Wikipedia_readership_survey_2013 --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.. I suppose. I've already typed out two different comments, and scrapped them both because I found some cogent post on the page which made me change my mind. Too much to read... ! :-( But I'll try in a day or two to read through the whole and finally finish a comment. God.. it's easier to contribute to these things while they're still young! Bishonen | talk 17:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Don't feel obliged. I'm just wondering if you think it's a good idea in principle. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How

The Cockalier is a mix between a Cocker spaniel and Cavalier King Charles Spaniel

How do I do an article on Cockalier, a Dog crossbreeds when there is a redirect of the word Cockalier to Mongrel article? see here redirect page [10]. Shall I do an article of the redirect or make an aticle and redirect the redirect (which is kind of silly). Or? ... If you got me. Hafspajen (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cockalier is a fully protected redirect. If you take a look at the history, you'll see it was an article (a stub) in 2007, which stated that the breed is recognised by the American Canine Hybrid Club.[11] User:DragonflySixtyseven turned it into a redirect and protected it, because "ACHC is a pay-for-inclusion registry and there is thus no notability." So you can't turn it into an article. If you can convince Dragonfly that there is something better than ACHC that does establish notability, I'm sure s/he'll remove the protection and you'll be free to turn it into an article. Or you can convince me, but that's not as good, since dog notability isn't within my expertise. (If it goes woof and wags its tail it's notable, isn't it? Pettable, at least.) Bishonen | talk 14:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, well there are quite a few articles on crossbreeds on Wiki, see List of dog crossbreeds. This might be convicing... http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/cockalier.htm and also this. http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/americancaninehybridclub.htm. It seems to me they do recogognise Cockalier. And remember Blue Lacy. Hafspajen (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exactly, as you say, the Cockalier doesn't appear on the List of dog crossbreeds. But many other crossbreeds in the same situation do. That was the idea. But the whole things doesn't sounds like it is worth the effort if it has to be so complicated. One crossbreed more or less... might have better things to do than chase cockaliers. Hafspajen (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance appreciated

As you've noticed, this editor's contributions have required a lot of cleaning up [12]. I encountered them at Ayurveda, and added suggestions and warnings to their talk page, which are, as is the user's prerogative, deleted without acknowledgment or discussion. There's a tendency to steamroll ahead without listening to more experienced editors. I have already begun to discuss this with Acroterian, and perhaps a word from another administrator will help. Thank you, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. When I saw their "move" of Nirmal Baba I assumed they were a very inexperienced editor, but I now see they've been here for a while. Refusal to listen to advice will often have the same effect as newness, of course. :-( I have sort of had a word already, at Talk:Nirmal Baba and Talk:Baba Amte, so I won't go to their usertalk yet awhile. Posting on article talk also has the advantage that the addressee doesn't get to delete it. Bishonen | talk 12:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
All valid observations, Bishonen. Thank you, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do respect more experienced editors. And would like to learn form them. I would like to here-itself apologize if some of my edits / reverts have been found inappropriate. I have started following the advice given at Ayurveda article and will discuss on talk page before making edits at important sections or when the material might have differences of opinions. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Abhijeet Safai, and thanks. Perhaps you noticed my note here about "moving" articles (=changing their names) by copy-pasting, which creates problems. Please use the "move" tab at the top of the article, per instructions at Wikipedia:Moving an article. But it may not in any case be the best idea to move an article without discussion, when the history and the existing redirect show that it has already travelled back and forth between the different titles a few times. You're very welcome to ask me here if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 09:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Bishonen. I do not remember where but I remember that I had read somewhere that the articles are named by the real name of the person and not with devi, baba etc. I had seen the article of Shri_Mataji_Nirmala_Devi which redirects to Nirmala Srivastava.

I am aware that this cannot be the rationalization of my edits and I agree that I should have read talk pages in detail before cut pasting the content. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, but please note that you should never do it by copypasting, no matter if it's an excellent move that everybody agrees with. Always do it by using the "move" tab. If the move tab doesn't work, that's a sign you need to ask an admin to do the move, and this you do on the page Wikipedia:Requested moves. Feel free to take the Nirmal Baba/Nirmaljeet Singh Narula issue there. (The move tab won't in fact work for non-admin editors now, since the redirect has been edited.) Bishonen | talk 11:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
It is really great to see your response. I shall do that as time permits. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.ANI

Well said. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and useful to have that link here. Please click on it, dear talkpage stalkers! Go vote! Bishonen | talk 11:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Ima trock you for blolling. Drmies (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
was gonna vote, but it got locked... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kåldolmar

Hi! Is this a possible reference for citation needed to Swedish cuisine's kåldolmar +...http://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/123552?programid=3052  ??? Hafspajen (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think you want to reference the Charles XII history behind the dish, right? Your link is OK, I suppose, but here's a better one from Svenska Dagbladet 2012. Newer and with fuller historical background. Bishonen | talk 13:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
[/me is combobulated by the timestamps.] Time travel? Bishonen | talk 17:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Stolen wholescale from this edit, but forgot to cut off the timestamp and replace with ~~~~~. Famously Technical 01:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Travis Alexander

Hi, I am not really involved in the dispute but I have noticed that an article that I have contributed alot too has been the subject of a dispute for a few days. It is a user named Geebee that runs a pro-Jodi website of somekind that has heavily edited the article, and it seems that alot of Pro-Jodi Arias stuff has been inserted. The user is showing the telling characteristics of someone who wants to "win the discussions" as evident on the users extensive use of the talk page. Similar to the user who wanted to edit Emmelie de Forests article. I am also wondering if Geebee has broken the 3RR, anywhow If you could take a look at it when you find time it would be appreciated. regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the problem whereof you speak, but sorry, I can't face diving in there. The world is too much with me, and the way the user in question bloats up the history with myriad tiny edits is the last straw. You'll have to ask a younger and stronger admin. (hint hint hint try User:Drmies hint hint hint) Or take it to… arghhh… WP:dispute resolution. I'm sorry to have to give you that counsel of desperation, BabbaQ, I know dispute resolution with POV-pushers is a waste of time. But then POV-pushers are altogether favoured by the way Wikipedia works, as eloquently expressed by User:MastCell here: "our current system gives filibuster power to anyone with an Internet connection and an obsessive pet belief". Bishonen | talk 15:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I totally understand you my friend. I am also tired of the Jodi Arias situation, and wouldnt have bothered you with it if not another user had sent me a PM last night and asked me for advice. I have created an article about a more happy event that might give you some "happy energy" ;), Wedding of Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O'Neill.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, looks really good. Did you see that we have an admittedly not very good piccy of the pair together here? It's already been mined for this, and could suitably be chopped in half, removing Victoria and Unknown Gentleman, for use on your new article, if you like (and if you know how, because I don't). Bishonen | talk 18:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks a lot, Bishzilla. Let's see who brings me up next for admin abuse. A day's worth of protection for Trayvon Martin almost got me desysopped. For some real fireworks of the completely unencyclopedic kind, see 2013 protests in Turkey, one of whose editors kindly inquired if I was "the Gestapo of Wikipedia". Drmies (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well... Aren't you? :p J/K Technical 13 (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Bishonen is too busy trying to understand the "are you the Wikipedia Gestapo" edit. Mutters:] Ik gebruik alle bronnen door elkaar, als ze elkaar tegenspreken behandel ik beide… ok… "I use all brown door elks"… aha… "when the elks use sign language"… yeah, this is tricky. Terrible article, I suggest AfD. [Misströstar.] AfD is overrun by defenders of terrible articles. Is anything actually really deleted, ever? I created a joke list in 2005 or whenever it was, to make a point. It's been AfD'd at least twice but there's no getting rid of the sucker. In the latest AfD, I voted "speedy delete" and explained that I'd created it as an irresponsible joke. No soap, it remains an ornament to the project. Bishonen | talk 18:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
When they contradict each other, he uses both. Apparently. Those two "rewarded" articles are wonderful. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The elks contradict each other? Worse and worse. Yeah, the second AfD is certainly a reminder of the light, carefree days. You see even NYB kidding around in there? In other news, I'm helping you stub that school article. :-) Very hardworking admin, me! Bishonen | talk 19:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Many thanks

Thank you very much Bish. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure. When I arrived at the page in question with every intention of blocking, you had already posted a warning there. Everybody works faster than me. Man, edit warring on Requests for page protection has to be pretty unusual. I just sent you an e-mail. (P.S. Do you really hate Korea? :-)) Bishonen | talk 23:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the email. I replied. As far as posting the warning faster than you, I think you were so fast at stopping this disruption that you traveled back in time and caught me giving the warning. At least that's how I see it. :) As far as the claim by the sock, I guess to love Korea you must dump as much unsourced crap as you can in any K-pop article you visit. Somehow i don't see this as such a great idea. Take care Bish. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPV6 addresses

The IPv6 user has moved over to Blacklight power: [13] since your page protection of Energy catalyzer, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'm really tired of playing block-a-mole with them, so I'll just semi that one as well. Though I don't doubt that there are other related articles... sigh. I'm going to bed now, so you'd better alert some other admin if you see the IP hopper soon again somewhere else. Incidentally, RexxS told me it's easy to block the whole range for the IPV6 addresses — but no, I go sleeeeeeep. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
In this case, the rangeblock would be a rather wide range (/40), so this would not be an easy block to make without possible collateral damage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jasper. This stuff is really a morass to me. Hello, User:RexxS? Ping ping? Got any comment? Bishonen | talk 12:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I was going to ask about an IP6 range block, but I don't understand IP6 that well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the club. I don't understand range blocks, period. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I have a guide at User:Jasper Deng/IPv6 and mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Bish, reading up on CIDR might help you understand how ranges and range-blocks work. Technical 13 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I wasn't around, Chère; I was in Lincoln this weekend, retiring from trusteeship of WMUK. And now I'm going to take a break - do look after the place while I'm away. --RexxS (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Darwinbish proudly expands her tiny chest, files her gleaming teeth to needlepoints, is prepared for anything.] Don't worry, Famously! darwinbish BITE ☠ 17:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Bishonen pets the good bot. Darwinbish bites it shrewdly on the ass.] Thank you, BracketBot. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of whistleblowers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {| class="wikitable sortable"
  • UMDNJ Human Resources Department, UMDNJ Department of Informations Systems and Technology] Six months after the University "resolved the issue with Mr. Nappe", several of Nappe's

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already fixed the template I broke, you slow old bot. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
LMAO! You get that bot told straight Bishonen. It is rather slow lately and annoying. Anyone thought of booting the bot up the cyber-ass to speed it up? While I'm here, I was wondering if I may run something past you, as I've had a bit of a brainwave idea what I'm not 100% sure if it would be good for a particular article that I am working avidly to improve. TB me when you have a spare moment. Thanks, Wesley♦Mouse 20:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mouse, I would, but I notice that it's OGAE Video Contest 2008 you're working on, and, well the only subject I'm worse equipped to deal with than the Eurovision Song Contest and its fan club would be anything to do with sports. Sorry. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Oh its the main OGAE article that I was on about, not the Video Contest ones (I have those kinda sorted out). On the main OGAE one I have listed the members but only by bulletpoints. I was thinking of changing them into prose format to describe each of the respective branches (now that I've found the websites for all 39 of them, and would be able to write something based off their "about us" sections). Would that be better than having them listed in their current status? Wesley♦Mouse 21:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Putting lists into prose is always an attractive idea in general; lists are boring. Mind you, prosifying a bullet list of 39 sounds very ambitious. But I'd say go for it. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
'Tis a sad day when interacting with BracketBot is actually more fulfilling and productive than interacting with 95% of the active Wikipedia community. MastCell Talk 20:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's as may be, MastCell, but do you know what's the most fulfilling and… uh… [stumbles at "productive"] well, exhilarating, thing you can do on Wikipedia? Removing content. There's nothing like it. Check it out: Tempur-Pedic was 14,000 characters a few hours ago, and is now 3,500, and I feel full of endorphins. Btw I can imagine removing stuff from medical articles feels even better. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

help

Hi my dear friend.

Could you please make me understood of this text. would you mind to paraphrase that. thanks a million. please use positive verb in the last sentence. << The study indicated that greater boredom in year seven predicted significantly less satisfaction at year 16. In addition, greater satisfaction in year seven did not significantly predict less boredom in year 16. >> Alborzagros (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give me a link to where the text is to be found, whether it's on Wikipedia or elsewhere? I'll probably understand it better if I have context for it. Bishonen | talk 14:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
hi, here you can see this. [14] Alborzagros (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, cool, that helps. I'd put it like this: "The study showed that the participants who were bored in year seven were significantly less likely than the other participants to be satisfied with their marriage in year 16. It also showed that if participants were satisfied in year seven, it didn't make any difference to how bored they felt in year 16." Does that make sense? I don't blame you for having trouble with it. They've put two sentences about two different results together in one paragraph, and the second result is even a bit of a surprise in relation to the first. But the key, I suppose, is that the researchers have treated dissatisfaction and boredom as completely different things. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Thank dear friend. you are really a great man. you kindly put into enough time to answer me. You made me freshened up by your reply. I got at new information about this psychological issue and you pointed new keys out to sort out my misunderstanding. I have never pulled back to consult with you because of your informative knowledge and I am impatiently holding on for coming across new problem in English Translation in order to come back to your wisdom. This answer was a good opportunity for me to practice my new learnt phrasal verbs. thanks good wishes. Alborzagros (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, feel free to come back with new problems. (Note: you couldn't know, but I'm a great lady, not a great man. ) Bishonen | talk 09:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Hi again. sorry lady. In Persian Wikipedia (my first and mother language) 99% are male and you seldom find a lady!!! that is a reality not kidding. so i thought you were a boy! Alborzagros (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Full protection

Hi! Please take a look into the article Stranded Pakistanis. Some editors are continuously removing the contents just to win over this AfD. The reason of the AfD is that the contents of the article Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh largely overlaps with Stranded Pakistanis and is also a POV fork. The revision prior to the Afd should be restored and should remain fully protected till the AfD closes.--Zayeem (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, really. I understand your frustration, but moving on to an individual admin's talkpage while you still have a live request at Requests for page protection smacks of Forum shopping. Also it's not the kind of subject I have any expertise in, so I wouldn't take action in any case. Sorry. (If an admin declines the request at RFPP, you can then try to discuss with that admin on their user talk, if you like.) Bishonen | talk 14:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Hi

I think you missunderstood my intention. The comment on Rich Farmbrough was mine, I just added a change to my own comment. Under Wikipedia rules and guidelines I am allowed to change my own comment. Next time look at history, my user name pops up there, unless you track it by IP... I thank you in advance for understanding, if not, we will talk somewhere else...--Mishae (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good. Not sure what you mean by "track it by IP"; I tracked it by the page history. That particular comment was added by an IP here, and here you edited it 12 hours later, logged in as Mishae. An explanation in the edit summary is helpful under those circumstances. Well, edit summaries altogether are helpful, and signatures. If you sign with four tildes, you will get both a signature and a datestamp, as here on my page; it you sign with five, as I think you may have done on Rich's page, you just get the date. Bishonen | talk 18:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Yep, thats exactly what I did, I signed with 5 yesterday, and then wanted to add something in a rush. I'm sorry for any missunderstanding...--Mishae (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Croton Aqueduct

What do you make of the Talk:Croton Aqueduct situation? Curb Chain and the Deutsche Telecom IP(s) were adamant about being two different persons in the discussion there; one of IPs even notified Curb Chain on his talk page [15]. WP:SPI will probably refuse to connect them because the disruption wasn't extraordinary. But the coincidences in their other editing interests: at BRIC [16] (a recurring editing interest of Curb Chain, who edited it around that time too [17]) and also flags in general [18] [19] (a more minor interest of Curb Chain) are weird. There are a bunch of other people who agree with Curb Chain on the spacing issue, so maybe it is someone else despite these other coincidences... What do you think? (This is also an ongoing issue: the IPs keep doing that, the most recent edit of that kind from the that Deutsche Telecom range was yesterday [20]. It has also been going on for a long time [21] [22] [23] [24]. An ideal use of a dynamic IP, especially one from a huge range, is apparently enforcing one's aesthetic standards on random articles, without contributing anything more substantial to them... I wonder if this is one of those editors banned for using unapproved bots. It's hard to imagine how they find so many articles containing HTML comments in such a short time span by regular editing...) 86.121.18.17 (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody asked me to comment here, but I will anyways, since I feel at the very least that I've said more than enuff at AN/I (a 1st time forum for me that I'm still no where near comfortable being at BTW). As our Romanian IP address editor has said already noted there at AN/I recently "Curb Chain has probably been editing for a substantial amount of time before his current account. His invocation of 'wp:nsr' and 'flagcruft' in the first few edits points in that direction", there's really never has been any doubt in my mind that the Curb Chain (CC) account wasn't this editor's first Wikipedia account. Is it an attempt at making a "clean start", a sockpuppet, a meatpuppet, a "band hand" account, etc.? I really have no idea. I do have (a very limited but) enuff experience in with dealing with sockpuppets to know that the Checkuser's (for some reason that I don't understand fully) really can't connect IP address users to full Wikipedia accounts. It's also not unusual for sockpuppets to make talk page posts on each other's talk pages to try & throw people off. Is CC really from Germany, is CC using a dynamic IP address, is CC trying to hide his identity somehow, etc.? Again, I really have no idea. Those two German IP addresses from the above-mentioned aquedeuct talk page have made only a few dozen edits at best on Wikipedia and CC has made over 18,000 edits. What is also apparent to me at this late date though is that CC has basically been editing Wikipedia for quite some time without really a clue of how to do so constructively. Guy1890 (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really think this needs to go on WP:SPI. I haven't heard that they can't connect IPs to name accounts — surely they can. The Checkusers may not be very interested in the evidence that Curb Chain wasn't a new account, though; it's persuasive, but they simply don't much care if it wasn't new when it started. (They can't check that far back, anyway.) What they care about is abusive use of socks, such as pretending to be more than one person in a discussion to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists. 86.121.18.17, if that's what happened on the talkpage you mention, I'd definitely take it to WP:SPI. That is precisely abusive sockpuppeting, and you have a lot of points and diffs showing same unusual interests, etc. I see you provide some more on ANI. (Don't talk to me about Bishzilla, she'm about to explode with conceit.)[25]
@Guy: you did fine on ANI. If it hadn't been for you, nothing would have happened. Now maybe something will. But I totally agree that you don't need to comment further there. Admins are both busy and lazy; the longer a thread is, the less likely they are to read it. Bishonen | talk 11:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Well, as an IP editor it turns out that I can't start a SPI page. My time is limited, but the DT IPs must know that what they are doing is at least a little controversial, because in some cases they have been reverted, and the IPs reverted back; Special:Contributions/91.10.19.237 has done a lot of those. Good luck. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh crap. You know a lot more about it — I've never edited any of those pages. But I'll try to fashion an SPI report, if I get the time for it a little later. (UNLESS A NICE TALKPAGE STALKER WOULD LIKE TO TAKE CARE OF IT HINT HINT, or Guy.) Bishonen | talk 13:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Maybe it's that the Checkuser's can't connect different individual IP addresses together...I forget exactly. My "experience" at SPI really includes only assisting at SPI in the identification of a small group of sockpuppets after a rather lengthy (month plus unfortnately) set of discussions at AfD, MfD & DRV. What we really appear to have documented above & currently at AN/I appears to be mostly a bunch of (closely-related?) IP addresses (that only have maybe a few hundred edits under their belts collectively) oddly focusing on spacing issues (some involving flags) & empty subheadings in various Wikipedia articles. I've yet to see enuff evidence of Curb Chain's editing patterns to connect CC with these various IP addresses. I'm not saying that those diffs don't exist...I just haven't seen them yet. What appears to be more likely is that maybe someone (CC?) is doing a lot of these odd edits while logged out (maybe while using a dynamic IP address?), which is something that I think that I've seen dealt with more at AN/I than at SPI (I might be mistaken about that though). In any event, the Checkusers have a job that I don't envy at all. The standard at SPI appears to be pretty high, and, unless you can connect an account with a known group of already-identified sockpuppets, you basically need to spoon feed (for lack of a better term) the Checkusers a whole set of diffs that specifically show a consistent pattern of very, very similar edits over time. Guy1890 (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is of any help, Curb Chain has also been removing HTML comments, and more generally spaces of all kinds. Those between the last line of text (external links, references, etc.) and the navboxes are a sizable percentage of the vertical whitespaces he pruned; around 300-400 such edits by edit summary alone. He doesn't seem to care by what technical means the space was added. A small sample: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I want to make you aware of that IP 87.232.1.48 and I had a dispute before the IP was blocked three months ago. The first thing the IP now is doing is following my edits around apparently. I will assume good faith but I have no interest in engaging with the IP further as he brings up my bad sides. I dont know how to handle this without being "the bad user that attacks the IP". In the last few hours the IP has edited Miss World Sweden, the Jodi Arias: Dirty Little Secret article and the film articles AfD and Yohios talk page. Especially the edit/revert on Miss World Sweden seems to have been made only to try to get some sort of reaction from me. And I know that all IPs and users are entitled to edit any article they like, but I feel that doing edits to simply possibly provoke a reaction is unecessary and on verge of Wikihounding. I could be wrong but I have this distinct feeling as the user has except for one edit only edited articles that I have edited within a short period of time before the user returned, and it was exactly unfortunatly what I expected would happen. All I want now is for the IP and myself to move on and try to be productive only, right now I feel the IP is heading towards wanting a new edit-war for some reason. Regards, --BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin has taken the time to look at it. But if you feel that anymore actions needs to be taken then do that but otherwise I consider this case closed unless the IP tries anymore tactics. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't around, Babba. But that was a very nice forceful warning from Blade! It should work, and if it doesn't, more can be done. Bishonen | talk 12:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Bad unblock?

Per WP:3RR, administrators can block for less than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, and that seems reasonable given that the user in question had previously been blocked twice for edit warring. Also, per WP:TOOLMISUSE, there's not an obvious reason why consultation was not sought before the unblock. I think you owe User:Bbb23 an apology for that unblock without consultation, even though it does seem you were looking for a strict 3RR violation, which needn't have existed in the first place to prompt a block. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly a bad block in the first place, and I note that the admin involved has failed to comply with the policy requirement "to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Which speaks for itself. Tony (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nor have he and I, but thanks for telling me your opinion, JClemens. I explained to Bbb23 why I didn't have time to consult, and he still isn't around, so if I'd waited for a response I'd still be waiting. Or rather Ohconfucius would, which I don't see as a good thing, considering all the circumstances. Asking people to apologize to other people is a foolish pursuit in my opinion, however popular on Wikipedia, and so is informing experienced users of the content of well-known policies such as WP:3RR and Wikipedia:Administrators. I've been an admin here since before you made your first edit. Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs. I suppose I'd better link that phrase, since I nearly got blocked for personal attacks by an eager young admin last time I used it. Bishonen | talk 13:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
admins are people too. he may have real life stuff going on, unless he is editing elsewhere, in which case, not responding is not OK. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now let's see... the block was placed at 15:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC); unblock request was posted at 16:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC). Bbb23 was online until 00:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC), and made 35 edits in the intervening time. No time to review my block request? Makes you wonder... -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've got it wrong, Oh. It's not the blocking admin that's supposed to review the block, it's somebody uninvolved. I'm sorry that took so long; I should have thought it was usually quicker. But I don't work Category:Requests for unblock in a general way, so I don't know much about it. Bishonen | talk 15:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Talkback

Bishonen, I left a detailed reply on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hum...your comment "Notice: If another admin wants to comment on this topic, they may. Any non-admin comments will be reverted regardless of their merit" is troubling. You're a better admin than that I know...you should expect to get grilled from time to time on admin actions and that isn't just for other admins to do. While I respect your right to manage your talkpage as you see fit and also don't think a flame war is helpful, declaring that non-admin comments will be reverted...regardless of their merit...is troubling.--MONGO 02:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Least you stick to your guns and enforce the rule on that topic.[33].--MONGO 02:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Of course BB can manage their talk page as they see fit, but I also find it astonishing that they would make such a proclamation. Let's see, they used it as justification for removal of my comment. Like "this is a purely admin matter and is none of the fucking business of you mere mortals". I have every confidence Bishzilla will know how to handle it. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bishzilla blink.gif

  • Well..If Bbb23 just wants to have the dialogue between themself and Bish then all he had to do was say that's what he wanted. I also think the block was improper/unnecessary.--MONGO 02:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been forbidden to post on Bbb's talk page. Yet my problem was that Bbb doesn't comply with the admin policy concerning communicating with editors about his admin actions. Just doesn't want to know. OK. Tony (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless canvasing

Hey Bishonen, I saw your funny but actually serious thread in the AN archives, "Civility blocks are sexy, articles are boring." In that spirit, do you think you could look, as an uninvolved admin, at the Johnvr4 situation recently archived here. Discussion has petered out on ANI, but the content troubles have been going on for a year... I have also pinged User:Mark Arsten. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about civility blocks, I guess, is that everybody has an opinion about them. About content, only some people have an opinion; namely, people interested in and/or knowledgeable about the specific kind of content. Nobody's interested in all kinds of content. So… take me. While I'm generally interested in American politics, as so many people are around the world, many aspects of it are as a closed book to me, from ignorance and from, well, disinterest. I suppose that's partly personal, but in good measure from my not being an American. You can probably guess where I'm going? Yeah… amongst the many, many things I'm ignorant about, the subjects and especially the conspiracy theories covered in Operation Red Hat rank quite highly. I went look, but I just couldn't get my head round it.
(Later.) After reading the deletion discussion, I understand that my incomprehension of the article comes only partly from my own stupidity. I admit I'm relieved. (And I found a cool essay there, WP:TNT.:-)) Well, Operation Red Hat's been deleted, never mind about that. I understand you're worried about the user's continued editing, maybe especially Project 112. (Good tags! They reminded me of the useful coatrack essay, that I'd forgotten about.)
No… sorry. I really am sorry, because I can see how hard you're working with this. But I don't have the energy, or the will, to handle an obsessive SPA who first talks all the hind legs off of all the donkeys and then fucking copypastes the goings-on all over the place. I dealt with such a user once, in early 2011, and I'm still in fucking recovery, even though other people did most of the heavy lifting. And that was in a field I like and understand!
If the topic ban question comes up on a board again, I have now read enough background to post a brief supporting opinion. But beyond that, I got nothing. :-( I wish you luck.
Crying is OK here.
P.S. Oh god. [/me sees Balph Eubank in there. Starts to tear out her hair in clumps.] Bishonen | talk 23:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
LOL, don't go into PTSD over this. I suppose these guys fall in MastCell's 85%, although somewhere toward the tail. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I'm starting to get feelings of déjà vu whenever I edit anything about CBW. Latest [34]. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okinawa...? arghh... then comes my fit again: I had else been perfect, whole as the marble, founded as the rock. [Shivers.] Bishonen | talk 22:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Part 2

There's now an arbcom case request about the contamination of Earth with Mars bacteria (as if ...) pitting someone who might fit your definition of "obsessive SPA", not surprisingly supported by another editor endorsing a sandsteinean approach to dispute resolution (meaning based on superficial civility). Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer.Wolfowitz' block

(I've copied this post of mine from Geni's page, since he replied here, and it must be hard to follow for others.) You're wheel-warring with me, Geni. And why did you even bother to block the e-mail? As far as I can see, he doesn't have e-mail enabled in the first place. I wasn't aware of that, but discovered it when I tried to e-mail him to say that I'd restored it. (See, I preferred to do that by e-mail since posting "openly" on KW's bedlam of a page means being moved around, recombined, re-headlined, deleted, collapsed, or any combination of them, and I don't fancy it.) You know you're not supposed to wheel-war, right? Bishonen | talk 12:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

You know you aren't meant to undo another admin's blocks without first contacting them right?Geni (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How predictable of you to say that, Geni. I'm disappointed. Anyway, I'm sure you're aware that you're the one that crossed a bright line, not me. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Also, could you please respond to my other question? Did he have e-mail at all, when you blocked it? I don't think so, but there may be something technical here that I'm missing. I'm asking because I'd really like to know; it would allow to me to draw a conclusion. (About his actions, not yours.) Now that you've posted here, I'd prefer if you kept anything further here, too. Bishonen | talk 12:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Post from new user moved from the top of the page

TO BISHONEN FROM MEDIA PIONEER: The living person referenced in Joshua DuBois fluff biased posting has clearly implied that he has a degree in theology or divinity from a reputable university (such as Princeton). R U disagreeing that Princeton is not "reputable"? So a statement about what this person has "Not" done by failing to having any education or degree in theology, divinity Bible History, Bible Archaeology, Hebrew or Koinea Greek (which are all basic minimum studies required to be a reputable minister or rabbi)is paramount to demonstrating to the readers of Wiki that this living person has educational qualifications commensurate with a politician but not of a minister. If you are an atheist that may demonstrate why you give so little credence to a proper degree in ones occupation. Finally, the exact QUOTE which was fully and properly reference about this persons "Tweet" had been published for quiet a while and demonstrates the tone and motives of the living person and his politically correct agenda, which if you would study the subject is NOT a part of his African Methodist-Episcopal background. Nor is it of his late father. Your block was intentionally malicious and most likely you are a biased friend, associate or Democrat trying to re-write history more favorable to your political interests. Shame on you! Mediapioneer (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Chain

Beware of the skvader, it may be a sex symbol.

This edit suggests he's not getting the scope of the topic ban. Perhaps because the article doesn't have the word "List" in the title? postdlf (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article's type is a chimera, in the original sense of the word. (Romanians have a funny portmanteau for that made out of combining ostrich and camel; and there was even a debate as to whether it should be in the dictionary given how widespread it is: www.romlit.ro/struocmila) Anyway, the suggestion made on talk to chop out the giant list is a good one. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lion, a snake, and a goat. OK… got it. I shall think of it as a skvader (hare + grouse). Thanks for keeping an eye out, Postdlf. I've written to Curb Chain. I can see this topic ban coming back to bite me on the ass again and again, what fun... [Imagines a combination of an oyster and a camel. No, that wasn't it.] Bishonen | talk 18:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
A Jackalope perhaps? — Ched :  ?  18:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the trip through the Looking Glass you take when dealing with this editor. Email me if you start developing nervous tics or heart palpitations... Montanabw(talk) 19:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday

... and amen to whatever Scandanavian gibberish has replaced my words of wisdom (temporarily, one would assume) atop your talk page. MastCell Talk 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethereal gossamer words about the magic June night. Intoxicating spells, I assure you. Just don't run them through Google translate if you don't want the magic to turn into a series of bishzilla-grunts and comic pratfalls. No, they won't be here for long, but, uh, your...mmm...words of wisdom, haven't they had their week in the sun? Bishonen | talk 01:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
"Gibberish"? A quality distinct from the phonological plainness of English. But don't the Danes say that Swedish sounds like Danish spoken with porridge in yer mouth? How rude. Tony (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. Thanks for gratifying my unreasonable egotism. Take that, Harry Martinson! MastCell Talk 20:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case ...

... there's a connection between your "motto" and your real life ...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU!!! .. and I figure with the you, the twins, 'Zilla, Bish and chips, and the plushie maker .. there's a 6:365 chance one of you is close to such a joyful day. — Ched :  ?  01:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the attention, guys. If you track the socks through their logs, Ched, for instance [35], you'll see that the twins were born 19 October, Pod 5 July, and so on. And if you count all the plushies so diligently sewn by Yomangani and Pod, we were probably born on every day of the year! But my birthday is on the magic, dappled, sleepless, longest day of the year: 20 June. There's not technically "midnight sun" here, but it sure as hell doesn't get dark. Juni natt blir aldrig av: the June night never comes, it looks more like a dewy day. Bishonen | talk 05:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Hey, you've sent me the seasonal dance around the maypole performed on my birthday, how thoughtful! In kanji form! (That's as far as Bishzilla's understanding of the matter goes, but I suppose the characters are actually Chinese and called something else?) [/me reads the rather fun Maypole dance article. Could it be that I'm being "an exceptionally poor researcher" like Alexander Hislop?] Just look at the feet of the person near the left edge (second from the left? the crowd's a bit of a blur just there): that's dancing! I don't know that there's traditionally a herald with a staff involved, like your guy second from the right, but there almost ought to be; he looks very fine. The maypole itself in the middle is perfect, there's even a wreath on one of the arms (compare the photo). If I might be critical of just one thing, it's the slightly intrusive furniture. Make fun of my IKEA interpretations all you want, but the chest of drawers just doesn't make sense to me. I suppose it's "symbolism", that catch-all? Are the drawers to be thought of as containing the brännvin and hotdogs? Anyway, most kind, little Heim! Bishonen | talk 11:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • They're called "hanzi" in Chinese, but that word is a cognate of "kanji" and are in fact writtent the same way (much as "light" and the German "Licht" are cognates, and if those words were written using ideograms rather than phonetically, they might might be written the same way but pronounced differently). And no, not making fun of the IKEA interpretations, I just think they're fun! I'm not sure they ever completely make sense, even when you can read them, but they are the way the language is written, like it or not! If you ever really want to know how Chinese characters are formed, I could tell you, but probably better to use email, as it'd be really long. Or you could just read Chinese character! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having some hazy notion of maybe two or three kanji, from Bishzilla and my son, I have an idea that the chest of drawers may in actuality mean the sun. Does it? Then it would fit just excellently with the other dancers in the summer solstice celebrations. ^_^ Bishonen | talk 16:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Check it out, talkpage stalkers!

Hey, folks, you remember Bishonen's rather bland compliment switch at the top of this page, that she used for saying something ingratiating to her visitors? Boring. Check out the new improved switch on my page! :D darwinbish BITE ☠ 19:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

List of blues rock musicians

The article The Reformation has been deleted. Do you think you could remove that entry (and its annotations) on that list page? It occurs twice.Curb Chain (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove The Blue (rapper) and "Phoenix Orion" on List of alternative hip hop artists?Curb Chain (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. You're banned from the topic of lists broadly construed. Apparently now I have to tell you that the ban also applies to user talkpages. Please don't try to make an end run round your ban by asking others to edit for you. Lists are off limits for you on all pages. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

More on a certain user already mentioned on this page

As it is apt to be deleted on Curb's page, as the blocking admin (I think you're the blocking admin, I want to copy my comment at Curb Chain's talk here as well:

Puh-leese, Curb, don't play innocent, it doesn't become you. YOU are under restrictions for YOUr behavior and WP:OTHERSTUFF is irrelevant. You are an experienced user (especially factoring in your probable sock accounts) with a known record at AN, so don't claim you don't know how it works. Really, I actually can't decide which of your little ANI drahmahz is my favorite; the one from 2011, the famous one, this lame one, another lame onethe lamest one Montanabw(talk) 21:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Curb Chain isn't blocked, they're topic banned (compare the section above). But I'm the one that closed the latest ANI discussion, formulated the topic ban, and registered it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, so in that sense I'm "it". Extensive link collection there! You're welcome to back up your post here. Perhaps a more informative header? Wikipedia is full of rabbit holes like a Swiss cheese. Bishonen | talk 22:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • I stand corrected, at any rate, this isn't the first time that an admin who took action against CC has been accused of being involved precisely BECAUSE they took action against CC. Just letting you know. I could change the header to "through the [{Lewis Carroll|Looking Glass]]," ?? ;-) Montanabw(talk) 17:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh crap, stupid me! There's already a section called Curb Chain higher up on this page! Such doubling can cause schizophrenia and dehydration of browsers. Changing again: how's this? More tactful, huh? (What can I tell you, people don't often come to teh bishonen looking for tact.) Bishonen | talk 22:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Heads-up

The 91 IP has come back to ANI: [42]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. Not going to do anything about that, sorry. Bishonen | talk 21:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Attack political party

With regard to your revision of Attack (political party) you have unsufficient grounds to prove this party far-right. I wonder where do you come from and what expertise do you have in political sciences and Bulgarian political life? I recommend that you better assess Attack´s political behavior rather than what is said and declared by them. A party calling for nationalization and entering under-table coalition with a minority party cannot be called far-right and there is not such an example in the political life of Europe nor in the world. If "Attack itself claims not to fit on the left-right scale" you should at least remove the "far right" behind ultra-nationalist and leave it as a point of discussion. I understand that there is a number of violations against the page but you cannot put reasonable comments and ammendments on side because of this. Many serios observeres in Bulgaria strongly disagree with what is Wikipedia saying about this article. BR, silversvile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silversvile (talk • contribs) 12:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article talkpage is for discussing improvements to the article. I posted on talk when I edited, and invited you in my edit summary to come there also; perhaps you didn't notice. Please respond to me there, not here. By the way, you can sign your posts on talkpages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. That'll turn automatically into your signature and a timestamp. Bishonen | talk 12:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Barnstar magnifique

User: Penyulap created this magnificent barnstar specially for me, constructed the machinery, trained the hamsters. (I had to swing by his page and pick it up, for reasons known to those who know Penyulap.) Amazing work and great kindness! Thank you very much, Pen. [/me tries to pet the hamsters.] Gosh they're going fast, it might be better not to bother them. Bishonen | talk 20:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Coolest barnstar ever. Looking at it put me back to kidhood. Most fitting choice of recipient. Poor 'Zilla and 'Pod, green with envy. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehe. It is, isn't it? And a shame about Pen's block. User:MONGO just referred to a barnstar he got (Hairy Shakespeare of the Woods Award) as the coolest ever. Guess what, Penyulap was involved there, too! I think it may be a draw, though the fairybread and hamsters absolutely take it away for childhood associations and for little legs blurry with speed. (As for the family, Zilla and Pod will get over it, but I fear for User:Darwinbish with her natural propensity for resentment and black bile. Emerald with envy!) Bishonen | talk 05:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. Let me watch … is it evening already?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sock to block

[43] Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will respond soon

I did see your very thought provoking post on PS's talk page. It's produced a great many ideas in my head, and I will respond ASAP. Best to the whole family as always. — Ched :  ?  18:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provoking thought? Oh my...this could be interesting. And yeah, from my chair this has been interesting. Intothatdarkness 20:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, guys. If you think that's interesting, you should see this little lot. (In the admin talkpage history, it's today's edits that are of interest.) It's all done and dusted, I think, I'm not asking for input or anything. But what a disgraceful business. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah. A touch too much of that kind of thing, IMO. But it does seem to be the accepted cost/way of doing business here. Doesn't make it right, mind, but closed societies tend to have their own mores and standards. Intothatdarkness 21:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Popping in real quick so this isn't archived. I'll resist the urge to stir any "adminy" drama stuff (there's certainly been no shortage of it). BUT ... the whole "Ched tries to be nice" thing: "moar, MOAR .. Feed me MOAR"!!! While I at times I may have the urge to attempt a go at "humble" ... I think I have the intestinal fortitude to resist that urge. I greatly appreciate the right honorable Ms. 'Shonen's view here. Especially as she has such a wide range of experience with her family. Little ankle biter can be rather blunt, while the twin brother and the plushie maker are the sweetest of souls. IMO Bishzilla is also very nice and kind, although she is not to be trifled with least her wrath be unleashed. (a good second choice for Admin. tools I think). Now Ms. 'Shonen herself tends to be on the kind and understanding side. VERY often a defender of the disadvantaged. Also, as an administrator she much check her emotions at the door and deal with things in a dispassionate and objective manner - so while I trust the "nice and kindness" is there, we don't always get a solid view of it. </me waves at Into on the way through - how ya doin buddy?> — Ched :  ?  15:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Bishzilla repeats her mantra: ] 'Shonen tetchy, difficult personality! Typical of her to criticise nice people! Easygoing 'Zilla obviously better admin! No worries archiving, little Ched. No busybody archive bots allowed on the Family's pages! [My god, she's started to spell Family with a capital F. This is worrying.] bishzilla ROARR!! 17:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
</me sees the beautiful 'Zilla #1 on wiki, massive tail thumps and shakes the very earth> Oh Ms. 'Zilla .. you like little flower snack? Not filling meal, but good intentions. YES YES .. You be admin ... you be "founder" please. 👍 Like What you think about all the silly children running around? I see master begging for kudos ... lmao. He silly huh? My master very perplexed ... not sure what that mean ... but he really hard to understand. He seem sad, mad, discouraged, frustrated ... he silly. Hey .. what music you like? What movies you like? What color..... — ChedZILLA 19:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zilla. Stop. And I mean stop NOW. Everyone is well aware of your infatuation with the honorable 'Zilla. I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are not the only one who finds the 'Zilla attractive. Floq's monster may be a bit upset with your overtures, as would be others. I allow you the space to post to Bishzilla's talk .. but if you're going to be a regular here - then work on articles. Do NOT clog up Ms. 'Shonen's talk page with your prattle. She has administrative duties to attend to, and I suspect that your foolish (yet honorable) interjections are not helpful. Got it? .... Sorry about my pet Bish. I'll try to do better at controlling him. — Ched :  ?  21:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know all about unmanageable pets. But the trouble is Bishzilla prefers dishonorable intentions. Even in the old days when she pined for Muzzy from a distance, she had a roving eye, and now she's impossible. Bishonen | talk 08:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Dishonorable intentions? OH GOODIE .. me :-X — ChedZILLA 19:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
< /me places giant muzzle on Dino mouth before he makes an even bigger fool of himself> Sorry Ms. 'Shonen. I left the gate open again - and he got loose again. I think I'll have to buy a heavier chain. — Ched :  ?  19:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco = Sock?

Bish, I sincerely hope you were joking with this edit summary. The removal was because of an edit conflict. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was. You're surely neither minion nor sock. But our wires must have got crossed a little; when I noted it on your page, I kind of expected you to fix it. No big deal, of course — it gave me the opportunity for one of my many untimely jests. Bishonen | talk 06:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Trust me Crisco - when Ms. 'Shonen feels the need to give anyone a "heads up" .. there's no ambiguity to it. :) — Ched :  ?  15:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Technical tps help please!

Help, help, Famously Technical seems to be on holiday! I tried to move the article about the book Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) to the correct book title. Only the first part was italicized, and the parenthtesis not, as if it had been an article name of the type Amsterdam (novel). But I only made it worse; I guess plain old wikicode such as '' doesn't work for article names. (I think it does when I create articles, but not in moves, apparently.) Somebody fix, please?? Bishonen | talk 18:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Unusual case, but easily fixed: the template needed to go after the Infobox, and a parameter was missing.[44] Happy editing, AGK [•] 18:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake was made :)

If you look at the articles about other famous books, you'll see that the italics effect is achieved with DISPLAYTITLE, e.g. {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Principia Mathematica''}}. Could you move Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) back to its original location please? Thanks in advance, MartinPoulter (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just noticed your request above. Sounds like you need to put the request on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I moved the article back just a moment before you left this message. Regards, AGK [•] 18:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template..? OK. Thank you very much. A mistake was made by me; or, to weasel out of ever admitting such a thing (which is what the book is about): I took a shot in the dark. Compare my rather pessimistic log summary. Now please both go read the book, it's most enlightening. I have it here on my desk. :-) Bishonen | talk 18:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Checking AGK's edit here. Aha, I understand what went wrong to begin with, before I even got there. Stupid template saw the brackets and thought it was a title such as "Amsterdam (novel)". I learned something. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Got the book and love it: that's why I created a Wikipedia stub article about it. ;) Great work AGK for fixing this so quickly, and Bishonen for appropriately tentative edit summaries. Best wishes, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you did, nice job. And I note you also added the review from which I've picked my new admin motto (a quote from the book, of course) at the top of this page. :-) Bishonen | talk 14:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Handsworth Wood

Thanks for protecting the article. I just sat on it on my watchlist rather than going to RFP because I thought it would be rejected for lack of frequency, so I'm glad that's one fewer thing to worry about. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're welcome. It wasn't that frequent, but it was pretty nasty vandalism, BLP-wise. We don't want it up for even a short while. Bishonen | talk 19:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
After more vandalism, protection was again declined at RFPP. Would you consider protecting again? (And if I've done wrong in coming to you after the request was declined, just ignore this message.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad timing part dieu

Hiya Bish....I gotta stop editing an article (which is essentially done anyway) and if you read what I already wrote here you might understand why...but its a somber issue for me right now...if you feel like fixing my usual sentence structure issues, feel free.--MONGO 00:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what a dreadful thing. Sombre indeed. I was appalled when I saw it on the news here, but also surprised: how can such a thing happen today, in America? If it can, why doesn't it happen all the time, every year? I couldn't fathom it.
The irony of your fine new article is indeed the impression one takes away, from the section "Early 20th-century firefighting", that "Oh, that was then, it couldn't possibly happen today!" :-( I don't know what could be done about that impression, though, as the section is perfectly NPOV and factual. I'll ask the eagle-eyed Fr… oh no, he's been indeffed. :-[ I'll just take a little copy-editing look myself a bit later, I'm just going out. Bishonen | talk 13:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thanking and such

Hiya, Bishpack. Just swinging by on a rare down moment. Two questions...who is this Fr... you are referring to and why was he/she indeffed? And while looking through your logs to see if you were the one who did the indeffing, I noticed this: "10:53, June 29, 2013 Bishonen (talk | contribs) thanked Demiurge1000 (talk | contribs)". Wha, what? What is "thanking" someone all about? I don't think I have ever thanked anyone nor have I ever been thanked. How does one do that and what does the thanked person see when you do it? Inquiring minds want to know... Tex (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I indeffed Frutti di Mare, to MONGO's distress; they were pals. It's all User:Cassandra at the peak of her insanity's fault… long story. Indeffing him was a kind of compromise, because the CheckUsers wanted me to out him as a sock — which I didn't like to do, poor fellow — but I'd already retired him, for some good reasons that would take too long to enumerate, so blocking him hardly mattered.
Thanking is part of the new Notifications system. If you look closely at any page history, you'll see a new link at the end of each edit, labelled "thank". By clicking it, you thank the person for that particular edit. Wait, I'll thank you for your edit here right now; can you find it? :-) Bishonen | talk 19:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
(moving this to its own section so as to take the frivolousness away from MONGO's somber section.) Well, I'll be! I'll have to read up on poor Frutti. And thanks for the the thanks! It took a while, but I found it. Cool beans! Tex (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the Flesheating Bish eating pens!
Well, I see there's nothing to read up on. Poor Frutti...he will be missed. Anyway, enough playing around, I have work to do. Bye! Tex (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My love to the ever-growing posse of babies. P.S., the simple way to find who indeffed a user, and to find the user's block log altogether, is to go to their contribs, like Frutti's here. Being an admin and also inquisitive, I probably do that ten times a day. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Since you've consigned FdM to the outer darkness, it's high time you addressed other phyla in your family tree: your socks are disturbingly biased in favor of vertebrates, or, depending on Darwinbish's species, chordates. At some risk of extreme obviousness, Bishobite hasn't been claimed yet. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(The cladistics of the twins is a little intricate.) Bishobite, mm… pretty name. Bitey! The cute little twins Bishobite and Trilobish, perhaps. Though note that Little Stupid isn't allowed to create any more socks ever after the Darwinbish debacle. What about the whole neglected Plantae kingdom? [/me absentmindedly creates User:Flesheating Bish.] Bishonen | talk 10:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

A barnstar 2.0 for you!

The Special Barnstar
Good job with copy editing the Blackwater fire of 1937. Odd to see something so major missing from Wikipedia, but nice to see an editor produce it, and another editor spit shine. AfadsBad (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

Bishonen, I saw your comment at the AN and didn't want to respond there. TP has convinced me that I've said far too much already. Boy, is that an understatement! Haha. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I was very hurt by your comments because before I read them I thought you were an absolute sweetheart and a wonderful admin. I can't remember exactly where I came across you, but I clearly remembered you as soon as I saw your name. I even saved your talk page and have a note that says, "Wondeful admin, so nice, very helpful!" Anyway, if you support sanctions against me that's fine, I would understand that. But the mocking tone of your comment and the fact that it alluded to my wife and kids was hard to read coming from someone as nice as you. Honestly, it shocked me when I saw it was you who wrote it. (I expect it from some of the others.) And just so you know, my wife didn't tell me to continue editing, she and my kids urged me to respond to the allegations. But regardless of what happens, I will not be editing once it's over, which I'm sure will be better for everyone involved. Anyway, your comments probably hurt me more than anyone else's because of the great amount of respect I always had for you. Have a good week. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "I always had for you"...hum...you mean since April? Did you know of Bishonen before under a different IP or maybe a username? Quick, show my comment to the wife and kids and see what they think you should say now.--MONGO 05:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of these are not this editor, but some are. 76, half your troubles here would disappear if you just created an account. Success (in any endeavour here) depends a lot on reputation. You can be a bit annoying. When someone without a reputation annoys others here, others will just assume the worst. With a name, you will build a reputation - for better or worse - and others will judge you on your history, not their fears. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, Anthony, what a collection. So this is someone who had a pre-existing grudge against Andy? Funny how I kind of thought that might be the case. :-[ It's time this project started requiring its editors to create an account. Hasn't the theoretically very beautiful ideal of IPs being able to edit Wikipedia (most of them dynamic, usually through no fault of their own) been abused enough yet, and wasted good-faith editors time enough? Yet? Bishonen | talk 17:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    Create an account? Look who's talking! 'Ark at 'er! darwinbish BITE ☠ 17:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    I have no problem with IP's editing without creating an account...what I do have a problem with is someone too lazy to create an account showing up at noticeboards, getting into long debates and looking for reasons to taunt (as above), bait, harass and wikilawyer and seek reasons to get others sanctioned. I call that trolling...least that is what it has always been...and the passive aggressive nature of this IP is sickeningly transparent for what it is...its not even Civil POV pushing...its all just a little game, surely inspired by the wife and kids. Grrrrrrr!--MONGO 17:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm not sweet, and I'm afraid I stand by my tart remarks on AN. Reviling AndyTheGrump and pointing to his block log had what to do with the ongoing poll? All he did was give his opinion in a civil manner. No, he didn't spout a bunch of rhetorical insults, that only happened in your head. And when you brought up your wife and kids (you brought them up, I just quoted you), it was a bit of a 1974 Nixon farewell speech moment — 'I have a mother/I have kids, how can you do this to them? You've hurt them!' Bishonen | talk 09:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Just to be sure

Ok, just to make sure I have it right: User:Darwinfish, User:Darwinbish, User:Bishapod and User:Bishzilla are all humorous alternate accounts of yours? Howicus (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you put it like that, I suppose so. Basically. Though it's technically more complicated: Bishzilla is my sock, Bishapod is Bishzilla's sock, and in an unguarded moment, Bishapod created the twins: good Darwinfish, evil Darwinbish. So they're not mine in a very direct way; but there is admittedly an Actual Secret Individual Who runs Us All, so… yeah, I suppose we're her alternative accounts. See also family portrait here: that's up on my userpage, to help myself and others when we get confused. [Reluctantly.] And then there's User:Cassandra at the peak of her insanity. May I ask why you're concerned to have it right? They mill about in a confusing way anyway, and the fact that they're my socks doesn't necessarily mean that they do what I say. I don't recommend creating this kind of family, you know! I spend half my time traipsing after Darwinbish apologizing, and reassuring people that Bishzilla really has a heart of gold and doesn't eat little users hardly ever any more. Bishonen | talk 00:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Just wanted to make sure that none of them were "people" at least not in the legal sense. My confusion arose because Bishzilla's page mentions you, but none of the others do. And don't worry, my socks stay firmly on my feet. Howicus (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


You rang?

I assume you linked my username on purpose. Don't ask for a desysop; instead, use your bit to do something Righteous. Nevermind, did it myself, not sure why I'm asking others to do adminny things.

Hope your summer is going swimmingly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, evocation-by-linking. Now that you've been evoked from beyond the grave, I suppose you'll have to be exorcised again? I admit that when I idly follow some of the zealot-fighters and tendentious-editing resisters (none of the ones I stalk are admins) around and see what they have to put up with, I get a real warm rush from the sense that haha, I can do something about that little lot, because I'm an admin, hoho! Bishonen | talk 21:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I know you and I have not always agreed and I know you asked for people not to do this, but you shouldn't resign. I even have good, positive reasons for saying so, but I'm not sure you want to hear from me, so I'll stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering our recent disagreement about blocks and unblocks (the very subject at issue on WP:BN), I take that very kindly. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Naples metro IP

He's always changing his IP-number, now he's here.--FS Italia (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there doesn't seem to be much point in warning or blocking this person. I've semi'd the redirect also. Only 24 hours — please let me know if you see problems continuing after that (I'm going away on the 8th, though). Do you know of any other pages that he's interested in? And thank you for dealing with this! Bishonen | talk 17:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
if it really becomes a problem, go to WP:RPP, and have them semi-protect the pages as needed. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a bit of email ma'am.

— Ched :  ?  13:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sir. Replied. Bishonen | talk 16:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

How?

you know these sort of things; how do you make secure or locked (or whatever they are called) links so that when people look back on a page in ten years they can see what you are talking about - even if the page has since been lost or changed?  Giano  09:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In "view history" you can click on the date to get a link like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&oldid=563790327 — but that isn't going to work if the revision has been deleted (e.g. because the page was deleted) so maybe that isn't what you are asking for. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Min ting

De kastade sig framstupa för hans fötter och gräto och bekände sitt fel; och Almansur gav dem därpå, såsom hans vana var när han var mild till sinnes, tid att framsäga sina böner och binda upp sina skägg, innan deras huvuden höggos av.

Hej Bishonen!

ArbCom wrote new rules of evidence for my arbitration case.

The history of the evidence page contains a small selection of remarks by the other "party" at IRC. All of the quotations concerning gender-related violence have been removed by Risker.

It would be useful to list other examples of mistreatment of women on Wikipedia, even using these rules of evidence. I thought that I had once removed something nasty Rod had written about you, but I could not find it in his talk-page history.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really on break; I only dropped by to say "fiddle faddle" to Floquenbeam, who is on an even more unconvincing break, though even that is nothing compared to the least breaky break in the world, which is the one announced at the top of your page. Anyway, Risker gave a reason for removing those log quotes. Also, I'm afraid I'd rather kill myself than get involved in that RFAR. Bishonen | talk 09:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
That's a big bunch of baseless baloney, Bish. My break is much more convincing than yours. You stayed away only 1 week, whereas I've been staying away for 1 week for several months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frukta inte---ät frukt! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 20:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yay

This place is very drab without you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fiddle faddle"? That's like the 50's schoolmarm version of "you're a cowardly idiot, Floq", right? Yes, I probably am. It's Murry's block log, I wanted to give him the final say, but I'm confident he'll appreciate your annotation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not, it's alliteration! Pay attention! Hi Anthony! Bishonen | talk 09:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, powerful Bishonen...

...I am just a random Wikipedia user/supporter, but can you help me? The Mirko Filipovic article is constantly vandalized and I lack the time and know-how to do much about it. Others have complained on that article's talk page and it frustrates me that no one is locking the page. Is there anything you can do to help me? Possibly teach me to revert the edits correctly or anything else? I can only do simple things on Wikipedia, as it's confusing to me, but it really irks me when I see such blatant vandalism. Sincerely... LogicalCreator (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good header there! Well, break or not, I'll semiprotect this. The article history is a deplorable sight. When I click through some of the editing, it's apparent that most of it is vandalism, perhaps all; contradictory results and records keep being inserted, then reverted, and nobody ever gives any source for their edits. Practically all the editors are IPs, one or two of them probably reverting vandalism in good faith; but how can I tell which is which? I can't. I've semi'd the article for a month. I'm afraid it looks like no admins are watching the talkpage, so your pleas for protection there have fallen on stony ground. This is a very common situation, in fact it hardly ever helps to ask for protection on an article talkpage. For your future convenience, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the place to go. As for reverting recent vandalism yourself, this is how: look at the history. Click on the date of the last good version; that will take you to that version. Edit it in a slight way, for instance, insert an extra space between two words. That won't show on the page, but it'll qualify as a "change" and make the version possible to save. Click save. The vandalism is now gone. Bishonen | talk 09:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen may be a little tired from exerting that power, so let me expand on how to revert edits. Go to Mirko Filipović. Hold down the Ctrl key (assuming Windows) and click "history". On many browsers, that will open the history page in a new tab. Each row shows two radio buttons (empty circles that can be selected). On the oldest date believed to be good, click the first radio button. On the most-recent date (the one at the top of the list), click the second radio button (it's already selected by default). Click the "Compare selected revisions" button above the list. If the diff shows that all the edits are bad, click "undo" at the top right. Enter an edit summary and click Save (or "Save page"). If more wanted, the folks at WP:HELPDESK are good at providing help. Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

welcome back

... it's been an interesting week from my perspective. — Ched :  ?  12:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw you stepped out of your comfort zone there. Brave! But I shall not comment on the case. You don't like bickering, fighting and bitching — I don't either — and what's the case gonna be except a bickerfest, if it's accepted? There's one or two bruisers centrally and intransigently involved in the infobox wars that make me tired just seeing their name, you know. :-( Ti-red. Not that I can't enjoy a good fight if the conditions are right. [/me dwells for a moment on "the stupid BS with Bish and Jimbo". Smirks reminiscently.] But they so rarely are. Bishonen | talk 14:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Yea, I knew I was stepping into a big pile of "ka-ka" when I posted the request. And I'm sure I won't win any friends with this. But I'm out here all by myself anyway, so I figured I may as well turn the lights on and let some of the dustballs in the corners be seen. I admit, I'm one of the really lucky ones on wiki, .. I've always had a ton of good people stand up for me. There's a lot of good folks that get thrown under the bus on a daily basis here - and I hate it when I see that. I've seen it said that much of the discord on wiki is due to old grudges .. and I know that's true. Still .. my memory isn't good enough to remember who to be mad at .. lol. I saw a while back that Eric and Giano worked on a good (IMO) compromise with some collapsible infobox stuff .. and I was hoping that would be a good way forward. I did see that Giano was watching, and willing to contribute - I was glad to see that. I hate that he doesn't care for Andy, but that's just the nature of the world. I'll be honest here too, I've talked to Iridescent a few times - and I've always found great insight there. He told me that anyone could get smacked in an Arbcom case, regardless of which side they were on. So I did know going in that this could go many ways. But I figure life is short - move things forward. At this point I'm just rambling, so I close with the hopes that your week away was a good one for you and all the other little bishes. (and one big Bish) Hugs always, Ched — Ched :  ?  20:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my very dearest little Mrs Bishonen, how nice to see you returned from your travels - I do hope you haven't over taxed yourself, at your age one must be so careful. I really don't know what all this fuss about info-boxes is about; I just love them - one only has to look at my own modest Wikipedia article to see just how very useful they can be - I constantly receive letters of congratulations on my achievements as a direct result of it. Now Ched dear, what is all this rubbish about "Giano doesn't care for Andy"? Let me tell you that dearest Giano just adores sweet little Mr Mabbitt; why only earlier today - he was saying how much he would love to meet him in some secluded spot for an interesting chat - darlingest Giano does not have a mean bone in his very athletic and virile body, so please don't malign him. I thinks its very brave of you to launch such a case; naturally, no good will come of it, but it will highlight the problem. Now I must go, the poor dear Duchess of Cambridge is on the telephone, no doubt begging me to be a God parent yet again. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, dear lady. I hope you noticed my flattering reference to Giano's athletic and sunkissed body here. Just like you, I'm always working to raise the dear boy's self-esteem! Bishonen | talk 21:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • I did indeed notice your rather lustful comments concerning my nephew's body. It's not his fault that he is so wildly attractive, tanned and toned, and I did not think it seemly of you to mention it. Have you considered a spray tan yourself? A genuine tan must be so difficult in such a hostile climate, and it would make you look considerably younger. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

31

I saw your recent post at ANI where you blocked that guy for 31 hours. Just wondering, how'd you come up with 31 hours? A random number or is there some precedent with that? Just wondering, ★★RetroLord★★ 09:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a drop-down menu for block duration, Your Admiralship. It starts "Indefinite, 3 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, 31 hours…" down to "3 months, 6 months, a year". There's nothing to stop an admin from handcrafting any desired duration either, but it's quite common to use the drop-down to give 24 hours for a first offence of an edit-warring or 3RR nature, with 31 hours as an option for an aggravated case (which this was, in view of the many warnings and continued refusal to discuss). So, in short, yes, there's precedent, even convention. BTW, I notice the gentle User:Worm That Turned once blocked for a mere 3 hours for edit warring (cough) — no doubt the circumstances warranted it on that occasion. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
In that situation I felt that what was needed was a break in the flow of conversation, three hours was a good choice. The other benefit of 31 hours is that it's a lump over 24 hours. It's particularly useful for blocking public or school IPs - where the person is likely to return 24 hours later and not feel any repercussions of the block. School lunch breaks being a prime example. WormTT(talk) 11:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel sorry for today’s kids. My school lunch breaks were spent—if not developing rather absurd theories in the school library—down the pub. In neither case were there digital distractions. Ian Spackman (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting help

You recently commented on my talk page. Me and aprock haven't gotten anywhere, and without a 3rd party we wont. He's now refusing to communicate so I'm turning to you for help in the situation. Pluvia (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on your page in my admin quality, more precisely as being the admin who first blocked you and then warned you you're cruising for another block. That's what I commented on. I'm afraid that means I'm not in the market for mediation between you and Aprock, just as I'm not in the market for editing the article; all these functions are best kept separate. You'll have to ask somebody else, sorry. The obvious way of "taking" something to mediation is via Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, and that may be the only way to go in this case. If this were merely a matter between you and Aprock, I'd recommend a more lightweight procedure, like asking an experienced neutral user that you can both trust (maybe an admin, but it doesn't have to be) to mediate. But that would leave the other editors discussing on the talkpage, and editing the article, out in the cold, so it's not really an option. The trouble here may be that the other editors have little incentive to make a detour via Requests for mediation; and if they don't want to respond there, a request from you would most likely be rejected. (Mediation can't be forced.) Anyway, how do you mean Aprock's refusing to communicate? He posted on the talkpage 15 minutes ago.
On the other hand, you can't force Aprock or anybody else to keep talking by repeating yourself. Aprock seems to be getting frustrated that you keep playing the same "censorship" card, which is simply not relevant to Wikipedia, a private website. WP:BLP, on the other hand, is central to the disagreement you're having with other editors. I've asked you before if you've read it, but you're really not into answering questions or replying to other people's points, are you? Such a manner of debate often does frustrate others. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Hello

Hello, Bish. It's been a long time since you put me in my place. Today I was looking at the article on Edward I of England, and misread Malleus Scotorum as Malleus Scrotum, which made me think of your friend Lady Catherine de Burgh (of blessed memory). Since she's no longer with us, I decided to drop you a line instead. Jehochman Talk 00:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&oldid=565003762"