User talk:Bishonen

Cakes striking

File:Cakes, 1963.jpg

Think and be nice. Hafspajen (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[/me stares, round-eyed, at the sumptuous display.] And here I thought I had a good collection of sweets on my userpage! For once, there's enough so I can actually invite the naughty socks to tuck in. No, not you, Bishzilla! Maybe kind Hafspajen will post a really big cake just for you on your own page, wait and see..! If I want to leave all those on my page (and I do, you know!) I suppose I'd better archive the stuff above them, so the poor unfortunate Americans with crappy slow connections can load the page. Oh, and the poor dear Chinese network sharing devices likewise. Bishonen | talk 10:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

AW, thanks for your kind words. IT IS A DEEP HONOR AND FRIVILEGE TO OFFER YOU ALL THESE NICE CAKES. Please make sure that you are not eating everything at the same time. And edit please Alexander Roslin. These are beautiful cake they all look like they were delicious. The lovely cakes are inspiring. Do you offer training? please reply Hafspajen (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Training in cake eating? Yes, I do. I give a small class in Bishzilla's pocket on Saturdays. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. Bishzilla has now posted the study materials (=your inspirational cake gallery) for the course in a new fridge in Poet's Corner, and the class is underway in this cosy venue as we speak.[1][2] Everybody welcome! Bishonen | talk 19:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Sumptuous, pictured, thanks for the offer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Reall nice. I might make a corner like that for myself. Gerda Arendt what on earth is somebody commenting on our jokes on your talkpage (userbox-whatewer?) Hafspajen (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Ha, all this cakes and have some Pumpkinpie. This is the Pumpkinpie this is the dog. Hafspajen (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fogeyisms

Good afternoon; how pleasant to find an old acquaintance in my dovecot. How have you been these months or years?

For fogeyism, that was small potatoes. Try this œuvre (and my comment or perhaps fogeyish counterfogeyism).

Toodle pip! -- Hoary (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it bizarre what strange folks Wikipedia is comprised of, and what pet peeves they have? NE Ent 14:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. What could be more enjoyable than eradicating "comprised of" from the face of the earth?? (Except in quotes, of course. But that was just a mistake.) Go, go, Giraffe! Anyway, I like Joefromrandb, I hope he took that in the spirit it was offered. I like old fogeys altogether, if it comes to that. Dear talkpage stalkers, let's not start a thread about linguistic pet peeves, it can get murderously dull very fast. Please have some cake instead, and note your opinions of Hafspajen's offerings here! Bishonen | talk 14:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

my reason

Not all who think the behemoth was a dinosaur are young earth creationists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.68.228 (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I understand better why you changed "some creationists" to "some humans". But such a minimal change of one word makes the sentence absurd, you know. You'd need to recast the whole sentence, because with the small change you made it sounds more like some humans, as opposed to some howler monkeys or some earthworms, believe the biblical Behemoth to be a sauropod. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

No offense to 107, but the "some humans" got me chuckling; it's like something our wikipedical Behemoth might say while expounding her expertise on the matter. In fact this whole thing looks like a setup for a Bishzilla-related joke, possibly including the Bishapod/Sauropod connection. I'll wait to see how this unfolds. vzaak 00:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Darwinbish goes to create her own long-heralded sock, little User:Behemoth). Pretty baby! (Tickles it under the chin.) Eat the humans! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 18:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

A quick message of thanks

For protecting my talk page last night. You were indeed correct that I couldn't do it myself - I had enough difficulty writing the message I did. I do appreciate it. Worm^TT(talk) 11:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, but what an asshole, huh? I recently got myself a tablet, and it's good for some stuff, but I'd hate to try to perform a protection from it. The touchscreen keeps pretending I've touched some erogenous zone or something, and does a flurry of stuff I didn't intend! And that, mark you, is good and big (10-inch screen) compared to a phone. It's made me love my huge desktop monitor and keyboard the size of Michigan (I got it for Bishzilla) even more. Bishonen | talk 11:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Typing on this Dell XPS-10 is not as nice as a real keyboard, but when the interface is properly designed even a screen the size of a hand can work. Eventually the design work will be done. Sometimes I use a stylus. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A right pain in the arse. I was merrily checking my emails yesterday evening and someone mentioned that my talk page had exploded - was rather surprised. As for the phone, it's all well and good zooming in and out, but pretty difficult to get to the right place at times. The erogenous zone problem would explain all the buzzing at least! I've always wondered how Bishzilla types, with those tiny arms and habit of breathing fire when annoyed... Worm^TT(talk) 12:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishzilla? No, no. She's got the firebreathing under control nowadays and only breathes lightly on little users in a spirit of fun, to curl their hair or impart a tan. But it's a true pleasure to see the armless little darwinfishes dancing around from key to key on the family keyboards! Agile little buggers. (I use a stylus for the tablet nearly always, Jim.henderson. Darwinbish clearly wishes she could handle one too, but what can you do. She laughs too much to hold it in her mouth.) Bishonen | talk 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hi

Giano and others, could you please continue this on for example User talk:Giano? I'd rather not have any more of it here. Bishonen | talk 20:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Bishonen -

I wanted to point out that it may have been a good thing you were asleep when Ed removed Giano's TPA. After Ed did so, Roger redid the same block, and made it clear that it was still an arbcom block. Even in the case of bad arbcom blocks, if an arb has put in a place a block that removes TPA from someone, modifying it would've been grounds for problems. I'm not meaning to be antagonistic in stating this - a lot of arbcom's actions have confused me over the last week and plenty of them I wish I could've reversed myself - I just wanted to point it out, because I actively don't want to see you desysopped. Kevin Gorman (talk)

Nice of you to say so, but I regret being asleep. I've always figured I wouldn't mind being desysopped in a good cause, and this one would have worked for me. Anyway, I don't believe it. Ed17 removed tpa, not Roger. Roger merely made sure everybody knew it was still an arbcom block. The fact that he didn't actively revert Ed 17's action isn't quite like he, Roger, had taken ownership of removing tpa, because you don't see him saying "do not modify the block without arbcom's consent", do you? No, he says "do not unblock with ArbCom's consent" (... uh? Yes, he says with, lol, I only just noticed. But I won't pursue that red herring.) Anyway, we could all have had a field day arguing about my desysopworthiness. This farce needs another act, surely. I'm credibly informed that both you and Giano have invested in the popcorn concessions. Bishonen | talk 17:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

bzzt, Bish, it's pöpcørn --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well. Hafspajen (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a real issue at stake here. We elect Arbitrators to resolve disputes, not to re-create themselves as super-admins. There was no reason whatsoever that the block on Giano should carry any greater weight than any other block to prevent edit-warring. What makes some of that crew so full of themselves that they think they get to impose blocks that may not be touched just "because-we-say-so". Sod 'em; they need their noses rubbing into their mess so they realise how inept their high-handed treatment of others has become. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally, Rex. I agree with you completely, so much so I most likely wouldn't have merely restored tps, but unblocked Giano, if I'd been around in time for it. That's what I meant when I wrote on Giano's page that the block was done in a provocative manner: it provoked probably not so much him (G is cooler than you may think) as me; it made my unblock finger itch retrospectively. If it had been made clear that GorillaWarfare meant to undo the block herself as soon as the case was closed, I guess I'd have left it alone even though the superadmin "consent" thing angered me; but it was, foolishly, made anything but clear. To quote myself: when the blocking admin doesn't let on what it'll take to be unblocked, "indefinite" doesn't in practice just mean "could be any time, who knows"; no, it smells to high heaven of "to be unblocked if and only if you apologise, admit your mistakes, agree to learn to avoid previous pitfalls, work to address all of the issues, pave the road, seek redemption, face the music, show that you understand why exactly you were blocked and how right it was that you should be, and show remorse". So I might have unblocked, being as I am well aware that Giano wouldn't care to do even one of those things. To no practical advantage, of course; G would have been re-blocked and I desysopped faster than you could say Jack Robinson and perhaps even faster than I'd have a chance to warn Floquenbeam that he must recuse in the matter of my desysopping, lest it be seen as prejudicial that my sock has cybered with his. (Oh, Bishzilla! Oh, Floquenstein's monster! Bad freaks!) Anyway. I slept and it's all speculative. I missed my chance to go out in a blaze of glory and to put poor Floq on the spot. By the way, GorillaWarfare hasn't so far taken her chance to respond to me where I addressed her directly on Giano's page, so maybe not to either you or me here, either. But then she hasn't edited today, so perhaps we shall see. Bishonen | talk 23:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Is "to cyber with someone" really a verb now?

I was about to go all NYB on you, and talk about how I would talk about things in the general case but didn't want to get into specifics about a fellow Arb's actions. But GW seems capable of handling constructive criticism, she already knows that, contra Giano, I generally respect her judgment, and I dislike the thin blue line theory of Arb'ing. So, since you've pinged me (or is it pung me?), I'll comment and constructively criticize.

I'm not going to argue with a block of some kind; I wouldn't have done it, nor would I have tried to redact one insult out of the 50 that are still there, but I think I understand why she did it (out of a feeling of fairness, I presume), and it wasn't out and out wrong. If you edit war with an Arb, on an Arbitration page, you can't realistically expect not to get blocked (although there are apparently no consequences when you block one?). However, I would really have liked to see it made clear at the time that the block was intended to be temporary, and intended to be lifted as soon as the case was closed. That would have been de-escalating, whereas the simple "indef block" approach was escalating. But so many people were escalating things yesterday, it seems unfair to single out one person. For example, "stupid woman" was pretty disappointing.

I go back and forth about the benefit of "don't unblock without ArbCom's permission". It's hard to know what would be the bigger risk of escalation, adding that phrase, or omitting it and dealing with the drama if someone had unblocked immediately. Maybe the sting of that phrase would have been taken out if it had been made clear it was a temporary block. I don't know. I'm pretty sure that even if I weren't an Arb, I'd take the position that maintaining order on an Arb page is ultimately an Arb's call.

I'm more concerned about ed's revocation of talk page access, seeing as how involved he was in the case (I can't bring myself to do the time-honored ALLCAPS version of involved). But contrary to Kevin's comment above, I'm fairly sure that even at the time he did it, ed said somewhere that another admin could undo that, so just undoing the protection wouldn't have been undoing an ArbCom-only sanction.

My recusal on this may have been a mistake, but "taking back" the recusal would have (if possible) made things even worse. I would, of course, have supported a desysop of Bishonen ... so that the tools could be given to Bishzilla instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But only because Floquenstein's monster would have made you do it, I know. "Is it a verb now?" [/me imitates the squeaky voice of young master Floquenbeam. ] You'll make the monster ashamed of your ignorance. Even Wiktionary has it. Cyber: Verb: cyber (third-person singular simple present cybers, present participle cybering, simple past and past participle cybered) (slang) To engage in cybersex. "Wanna cyber?" Anyway, congratulations, the Bradspeak is coming along nicely. Bishonen | talk 01:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Oh. That's disappointing. I was trying not to Bradspeak. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take comfort, you're far from perfect at it (yet!). I was thinking of one particular sentence. Never mind. I've taken onboard your comment about GorillaWarfare; clearly you know her better than I do. Maybe she's not having a really good day today, because I'm a little underwhelmed by what I see of the "handling constructive criticism" thing on Giano's page. As I've just said there. But it's always easier to carp from the sidelines, and she's in a difficult position. As will you be if we continue this line of talk. Take it to e-mail if you prefer. Or, well, not, because I'm pretty much talked out on the subject. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

There are significant consequences to blocking a sitting arbitrator [3] -- worse than an ANI thread, RFC/U, and desysopping combined -- we elect you to a future committee! sucker NE Ent 02:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I don't get the outrage, is it because this happened to Giano or the circumstances of his block? Because I see regular editors indefinitely blocked every day, sometimes with no justification at all. I see IPs declared to be "socks" and indefinitely blocked even though they aren't submitted to an SPI and it's based only on suspicion (and it doesn't seem like it takes much evidence to meet WP:DUCK standards). It boggles my mind when I edit on a daily basis and see the amount of indefinite blocks given out, without warning, without a limited block first, they are given out casually every day without a second thought, sometimes with no block notice or explanation of how to get the block lifted. It goes 0>90 mph, sometimes within a few hours. I can only imagine how dazed and confused the editor is when they return to Wikipedia and find that they can no longer log in.

This is where someone else on your talk page says these are damnable statements and I must present diffs or retract my comments. But I'm not saying any particular admin is responsible, it's the environment of WP that these blocks happen without comment or objection. The editor must have done something heinous, right, or they would never have been blocked...such is the circular reasoning on Wikipedia.

I'm not saying being an admin is easy, you all have to make some hard calls. But I think the impact on a person when you shut down their ability to contribute to WP is severely underestimated. It's being silenced. Admins have that power and don't even have to be accountable to anyone. I'm not crying "admin abuse", I just find it puzzling how appalled some folks are with arbitrators when I'm sure every admin has made some bad calls that had much more impact on the affected editors than this temporary block had on Giano. Sorry for this tangent, Bish, but this is where I found the conversation happening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is just me, but here's what I find to be the hardest part of being an admin. About 80% of the criticism you get is poorly thought out, abusive, or divorced from objective reality. But 20% is genuinely useful constructive criticism—people calling you out for mistakes you've made. The problem is finding the signal in the noise, and taking on board the genuinely thoughtful criticism while ignoring the nonsense and not letting it get under your skin. I think a lot of admins eventually take the very human shortcut of just dismissing 100% of criticism. (After all, they're right 80% of the time, which is passable in some lines of work). Anyway, that tendency may partially explain the atmosphere to which you allude.

Here's another thing that's hard, at least for me. I feel like Wikipedia is a bubble and I'm a visitor from another planet. The way people talk on this website absolutely reeks of a total lack of perspective. If I spend too long here, it starts to seem like the greatest injustice that can possibly befall a human being is to be prevented from contributing to one of the several million websites on the Internet. I mean, most of my problems are first-world problems, but even I recognize this attitude as ridiculous. I can't walk out of my door onto the street without seeing a dozen injustices more profound, and more worthy of our time and passion, than anything that happens on Wikipedia. I will never, ever understand people who spend weeks or months (or years) of their lives and their discretionary time fighting to restore the editing privileges of some incoherent axe-grinder. Surely there are more productive ways to satisfy the universal urge to feel self-righteous. If we could harness a fraction of the effort that people devote to griping about administrative decisions on this website, and redirect it to—I dunno, name a worthy cause that actually addresses a societal need in real peoples' lives—the world would be a significantly better place. MastCell ^Talk 08:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you are open-minded and prepared to change your mind when presented with new evidence, then you should pick up a fair bit of the other 20% of criticism. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz - here is something to put this into perspective. There is a cohort of people here who spend more time at AN/I and arbitration boards and do little editing. That in and of itself I have no problem with. I do have more of a problem when people who don't do much content work try and dictate to how those that do. Furthermore, many who dictate the Fifth Pillar (as if a Commandment handed down on Mount Sinai) are themselves not following the First ~~Commandment~~ Pillar. What is even more frustrating is folks who are unable to extricate a view of the 'pedia outside these pages, and them assume to opine loudly and repeatedly on what would be Good For Wikipedia. There is a lot of background here that will bring on reams of argument if we go into too much specifics. I don't really have the free time or energy to go into it ATM..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The concern wasn't the block so much as an arbitrator declaring special status for the block in the absence of any committee action supporting the block. NE Ent 10:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting tired of watching everyone going around and around in circles. Has ever so much been written across many pages on two sites? No change will come from any of this. The arbcom is never going to condemn or censure one of their own. All criticism is neatly deflected. for example: a piece of satire (pointing out that GW is a clever, tough cookie who uses enablers to achieve her much applauded ends) questioned why it took two Arbs and an Admin to make the block; that was turned into apparent sexual abuse - ridiculous. They are just going to protect each other constantly and fight dirty; so be aware and either ignore or laugh at it. I shall continue to laugh at them and point out their foibles Giano (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Come to think of it, it has never has been adequately explained why Ms Warfare needed another Arb and an Admin to assist her in blocking one ordinary common garden editor (me) or why she had my talk page access removed. I do hope that she doesn't think I have forgotten about this because she will be labouring under a severe delusion if she does. Giano (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but she didn't remove your tpa, Giacomo. See log for who did. If you have a conspiracy theory that implies she was behind that action, I really doubt it. The admin who performed the action is quite capable of doing it off his own bat. Bishonen | talk 18:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Since you have asked me to explain, I will. As The ed17 explained here, he removed your talk page access because of the personal attack you were making against me. This was not something I asked him to do, but I did not disagree with his action. I'm not sure why you consider Roger Davies' modification of the block rationale to be him "assisting" me with the block—it seems like a housekeeping matter to me, as the only thing he modified was the accompanying note. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@[[GorillaWarfare. Sorry? I'm confused. Where was the attack? Did you feel it was because I think you're stupid or because I refer to you as a woman? I really cannot retract the former. Regarding Roger, well I'm sure you were grateful for the help - blocking somebody must be awfully complicated for a 'person' with your experience. Giano (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, must you be so constantly assholier-than-thou? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.136.242.1 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note from GorillaWarfare (moved by me)

Sorry, but it really doesn't fit well anywhere in the section above.

Hi Bishonen. I've responded to similar points as those you've mentioned above at Giano's talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean

You mean me in this editnotice ?

I am a flower.

Hafspajen (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er.. what? You are a flower, The Hafspaj, but I wasn't thinking of you with the young mandarin tree, no. I took it from Penyulap's userpage. Bishonen | talk 17:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Well good then, there is plenty of soup for one of your part-time alter egos... . Hafspajen (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top world news

Hi, could you salt this one as well: Top_world_news. I made an AIV report for six creations of the same promo article, but that may be the wrong place. vzaak 21:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as JamesBWatson salted it a few minutes ago, it probably was the right place. :-) Me, I got the capitalized version from stalking your page. Useful place! Perhaps more to the point, I've indeffed the user. Just in case they think of more spellings, and more talkpage harassment. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Bishonen. You have new messages at User_talk:Bishonen/Clueless_complaints_about_Sitush_noticeboard.
Message added 05:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 05:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding gundogs

Lady Catherine's gillie teaching her out-of-control gundog to "sit"

Dearest little Mrs Bishonen, as I expect you know my gundogs are the talk of every estate from Sandringham to Garganta. Only on Boxing Day, Her Majesty's head keeper was heard to say that he had never seen a Labrador catch and eat a pheasant as fast as that of Lady Catherine. In fact the dear Queen often suggests I leave them at home, obviously knows they will put her own to shame. Now you are doubtless wondering why am I here, talking about aristocratic pursuits and skills that someone like you can only dream of. Well! it's like this, the breeding of superior pets if a fine and precise science; it requires great care, attention and genetic study; but I have heard that Mr Floquenbeam has not been as careful with his pet as he could be. In fact, it's been escaping for shocking nocturnal activities and while, naturally, my own well bred pets would never look at such a common and unrefined creature, the same cannot be said for yours. In fact, there's a very ugly rumour circulating that Bishzilla has not been as chaste as one would hope. I only tell you of these distressing rumours because I'm your very dearest, dearest friend and it gives me no pleasure at all; quite the reverse, but I know you'll want to deny them. Assuming, that is, you can? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Evasively.] Who.. ? How dare you impugn Bishzilla's spotless reputation, you notorious old creature? Granted, she's playful.. [gathers confidence], but so are you, aren't you! Back in the day, and right now in your disgraceful old age! Bishzilla's little flirtation with Floquenstein's monster is hardly to be mentioned on the same day as your footman-chasing. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I hope you are not suggesting that I have ever behaved with the anything, but the utmost decorum. I can only say that I am disappointed, but not surprised by your unladylike reaction. I have long thought that you probably had never been properly finished. Funnily enough, you may be interested to know that I am thinking of running a course for Wikipedia's young ladies to teach them how to acquire a sophisticated polish (that's the shine a sparkle variety not that nice Mr Piotrus). I will teach a little embroidery, a little French conversation and of course my speciality, flower arranging - my greatest skill which darlingest Giano mentioned earlier today I expect there will be quite a few of our young ladies interested dear little Mrs Risker and that Ms Warfare too; so I would sign up early if I were you. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Offended

I can't believe I had to make this edit myself. Just because I'm not around doesn't mean I don't have feelings. I thought we were friends! Tex (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tex! Thanks for offering. I didn't dare ask it of you, what with your milling offspring. Hey, maybe the Tex Babies can curate my page also? Bishonen | talk 15:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Ha! Baby 2 is in that stage that he will definitely tell you when he doesn't like something. He has an opinion and isn't afraid to voice that opinion even if he's not "talking" yet. Lot's of screaming and gnashing of gums, that's for sure. Hope all is well with the Bishpack! Tex (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh what fun; I insist on being his Godmother; you must send them him to me for a little holiday. I've had endless (I can't remember quite how many) babies and what laughter we had with them; I remember when I accidently left Iolanthe on a train; Nanny was so cross with me, but it didn't matter because Nanny eventually found her in the abandoned luggage department at Aberdeen six weeks later, and she'd had a lovely time - we think. Then there was my eldest, Hugo; we used to love to play hide and seek together. He eventually won that game when I sent to boarding school, aged five, and forgot the name of the school. Anyway, my advice is to just enjoy you lovely children and don't employ a nanny - they just spend their entire lives complaining and looking sour at one. Just look at my children now - all very rounded individuals, apart from Muriel, but she was always an odd, nervous and ungrateful child. I just can't wait for Little Tex to come to and stay with me. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An honor to speak to you, My Lady. However, I have heard stories about the debauchery that often occurs in your midst. While I respect you immensely, I would rather not have your manservants corrupting my children. With all due respect, of course. Tex (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pish posh, Tex. The manservants, especially dear Sven, are far too busy running away from Lady Catherine's lewd advances to be corrupting any nippers, so you don't have anything to worry about. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Mrs Bishonen, I do certainly hope when I become elderly I don't become as lewd as you in old age. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cake

Don't eat all the cake by yourself and thank you very much for the comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llsilver (talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. You can have some. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Trueblood786

This editor was blocked by you (and rightfully so), but is asking for an unblock. The first unblock request was rejected as being insufficient, but between the first and second unblock request they seem to have covered all their bases as far as expressing remorse for what they've done, and declaring that they won't repeat the behavior. I additionally asked them what they would do if unblocked, and while not as specific as I would like, they seem insistent that they wish to be productive. I don't know if this editor is simply telling us what we want to hear to get unblocked, or whether they're sincere. I'm generally in favor of giving an editor another chance, but not over your objections. I do find the editor's behavior leading to the block to be bizarre at best, and horrible at worst, but they've also been a productive editor since 2006 (their account is older than mine!) with thousands of edits, and as far as I can tell they have kept out of trouble until recently. So it's possible that there is a chance that they'll stay out of trouble again if unblocked. I wanted your thoughts first. -- Atama頭 22:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Atama. I'm not entirely convinced, especially considering Trueblood's WP:IDHT style on ANI. It gives me pause that it took a block to get anything approaching responsiveness from them, and then that the block turned them into a lamb in the blink of an eye. But I don't object to an unblock, because as you say there has been progress. I suppose it would be churlish to complain that there has been too much progress to be credible! Do please unblock, but if I were you I'd warn them somewhat sharply that a relapse will have bad consequences. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Definitely. I'm basically going to tell them that I'm giving them a chance to prove their sincerity, and that any repeat of the kind of behavior they had will lead to another indefinite block, and this one will be more difficult to appeal since they'll have demonstrated their untrustworthiness. Thanks for your response. -- Atama頭 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't work very well. It turns out that Trueblood786 was socking, even during his recent block, and even created a new sockpuppet today. I've reblocked him, and his socks. Just thought you should know. -- Atama頭 19:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Atama, hope you're not downcast about it. You were right to AGF and right to unblock in that situation. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

No, I'm disappointed a little, maybe annoyed that I didn't know about the SPI before unblocking, but not downcast. I was downcast after this fun incident where I found that I'd wasted my time for two months enabling an operative of a political organization and trying to convince other people to assume good faith about him. This latest incident is nothing in comparison. :) Thanks for your support though, I really appreciate it. -- Atama頭 22:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me

You tell me please here and now what this user preferece stuff is everybody is talking about, but nobody explains that one can get it. What reader's setting determine the size of the image? Can images be different ? If one puts an image at one size how can this be different, I still don't gett it. Some people run around and upright pictures and the whole aticle looks weird, all kind of images of all sizes everywhere. Hafspajen (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the very top of any wikipage. Registered users will have a link called 'preferences'. Click on it and explore! Specifically the 'Appearance' tab will have a section labelled 'Files' where you can change the default size of thumbnails, i.e. any image containing the |thumb parameter which doesn't have an explicit size set in pixels. The |upright= parameter allows the image to be set as a multiple of the default size you set in your preferences; for example |upright=1.5 would set the image 1.5 times wider than other thumbnails. --Shonen's Technical Support Services (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC) (affiliated with the Bishonen conglomerate)[reply]

Well, an intelligent ansver, thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ty

Thx for being a voice-of-reason (re 'fuck') 88.104.30.86 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well… I really agree with Jehochman that it's not a big deal. About Fucking Åmål, a brilliant film title (at least if you've seen Åmål), I mostly thought the American censorship of the original title was interesting, not in a good way. If our article is to be believed, the Academy Award people were cowed by Variety magazine into exchanging it for one of the blandest titles in Hollywood history. But at least our article is illustrated with the Swedish poster and the original title! (Won't somebody think of the children!) Bishonen | talk 21:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not big on foreign (for me, english) films, but you've piqued my curiosity, so I thank you for that - I'll watch it.

Back on topic, I was dismayed to see [4] - I undid it, [5] but am sorely afraid I'll be overridden soonish. Such is the state of things - and to be honest, I probably can't be that bothered to kick-against-the-pricks. I might RFC/U Jeh for stomping down so hard, because I think even the admin-cabal will have a hard time justifying that.

The specific issue is quite trivial - whether it is "F★CK" or "Fuck" for a day... but I truly believe the wider implications are...well, wider. And more implicatior :-)

Anyway thx, whatever comes of it. 88.104.30.86 (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Pee po belly bum drawers 88.104.30.86 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For the freedom fighters. Let's not give in for those who will keep us in the chains of mediocrity, who fight fantasy and colour. Hafspajen (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hafspaj. Rather to my surprise Drmies and I haven't been reverted, blocked, drawn and quartered on sw wiki yet. Perhaps the small popes keep early hours. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, it sould be like two o'clock there soon. Hafspajen (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dr Mies got blocked, anyway. Hafspajen (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you 2!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Hey, ..........................................................................................................................Freedom of speach and pictures. Hafspajen (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard Incident Hafspajen - my first time ever.By the way, The picture they removed was the picture of Jesus Christ, and I do love him, he is my hero. Also I am kind of religious, in a clandestine way. Now that made me pissed. at the Swedish Administrators noticeboard Hafspajen (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An apology especially for Drmies and PaleCloudedWhite and you would't hurt. Hafspajen (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, and thank you for the star, but an apology to me isn't indicated — nobody did anything to me. Presumably that was because I'm a long-time (though infrequent) copyeditor at sv wiki.  Bishonen | talk 15:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

OK. If you are not hurt because they reverted your edits with no explications in the middle of this mess, desto bättre. Hafspajen (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, no, little pajen. You're getting mixed up with all the back-and-forth, and no wonder, but nobody has significantly reverted any of my edits on sv.wiki. Yger re-inserted Rex Sueciæ's comment on your talk, which I had removed, but that was reasonable enough (even though it was a pretty shitty comment). He left the rest. I reverted MagnusA's removal of Drmies' wikilove posts on your page, and my revert is still the last item in the history. Nobody has reverted me on Drmies' page either, where I posted a stroppy remark, still there. I think they may possibly know just enough of en.wiki to be frightened of Bishzilla. ROARR! Bishonen | talk 20:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Bless, little bishen. Hafspajen (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HM, I said that it is not right that they should have those blocks in their history pleasr remove it. And they say that is impossible to remove Drmies and Paley from the block log av tekniska skäl. Is this true? Hafspajen (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, Bishy. I think that it is really best for me to leave that Swedis wiki as I said I will. I really don't think that this will go anywhere. We did not made any point, nobody apologized .

A Swedish administrators talk page, [6] full of pictures and Wikilove, but nobody removed anything from HIS page, pictures of carrots and wikilove, but nobody is terrorizing HIM to take those off.

Hafspajen (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimi non carborundum, Hafspajen. Do some calming yoga or something. Bishonen | talk 11:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Bishy for you kind words. Also, did you see that they treat other editors very differently from the way they treat me? I can try calming down, but I am going to be supervised and folks will remove things from my discussion page just to assert themselves, and will go on partonizing me read this, read that, conform, please to our rules as I was a child, which I am not. I actually have several university degrees and I am working and also go on taking still more degrees as we speak. Have also my own business. And I have been on the Wiki since like six years, here. Hafspajen (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.Hope you are not mad about that strykt. Removed that. ^{was definitely Not s t y r k t} Hafspajen (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

198.228.217.150

What's the basis for claiming it's an open proxy? I'm not doubting that it's a justifiable block, but I didn't see anything about that IP at OPP. Daniel Case (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's OPP? I shouldn't have said "open" on the user's page. It's a confirmed proxy server,[7] as I wrote in the block log. Also, as James points out below, all the editing is bad (I did check). And the unblock request I declined was ridiculous. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Being a proxy is not reason for a block, if it isn't an open proxy. As far as this block is concerned, it's not a very important point, since you, Daniel, and I all agree that the block is good. However, the reason I mentioned the matter is that I didn't know whether you did have evidence of it's being an open proxy, or if you thought that any proxy should be blocked, or it was just a slip, or what. Since there certainly are admins who think that any "confirmed proxy server" should be blocked, and I have no idea whether you are one of them, I thought it best to check with you, because if you are, then it was worth warning you about making the same mistake another time, when there may not be other grounds for a block. By "OPP" Daniel no doubt means Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, aka WP:OPP. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query about an IP block

Hello, Bishonen. I totally agree with your block on 198.228.217.150, here: in fact I have extended it to range block, since virtually all editing over the last month has been from the one person. However, the one thing I am not sure about is your statement that the IP address is hosting an open proxy. I can find no evidence of that. I wonder if you can let me know what evidence you have? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Errm, when I wrote that, I hadn't seen Daniel Case's message above. Oh well... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to thank you profusely for the rangeblock, but I know this isn't the only IP range that the vandal edits from, so I know it's not entirely over for now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@James: I like the way the block expands every time it's appealed. :-) Probably by now they're wishing they had just quietly sat out the modest 31-hour block. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks

Thanks Bishonen for getting involved in the whole Swedish debacle - your help and directions on Haf's talkpage helped me find all the exciting action of the day! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, fun, wasn't it? I just posted at the Swedish ANI that I don't think either you or Drmies are too upset about having a Swedish block log. More of a colourful anecdote to dine out on, isn't it? Like having had a remote ancestor who was hanged for horse stealing. Mutatis mutandis. Bishonen | talk 00:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah. New tones for them. Wish my ancestors were eaten somewhere in Kongo. Hafspajen (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, I'm not fretting over my Swedish block log. I would have been concerned if the block hadn't been removed, but that's not the case. Anyway it was all in a good cause (Haf's Swedish talkpage—I think the ANI thread has been helpful there, unless I've misunderstood proceedings)), and I had good company throughout it all... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Block on User Lalitshastri

I think Editor Lalit Shastri should have been given some warning to explain himself before you blocked him. The crux of the issue is in the constant undos to Singahi Bhiraura page, which lalitshastri painstakingly created. A well researched article, he cited an inline published source for everything he wrote.

User Sitush who is rather heavy handed with the revert button edited almost all of it out. The whole thing escalated, and has led to this. With the result Wikipedia is a bit of a laughing stock amongst scholars. If you look at the early edits of the article there are all IP addresses from the BT server at the British Library. We have wifi here in the foyer and I know several academics who added bits to this article, however it was mainly Lalit Shastri who works in the archive who created it, go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lalitshastri, where there is a possible explanation of why user Sitush was so keen to remove entire paragraphs of the article, he reduced an article of some hundreds of words to a stub.

The evidence is there in the history of the Singahi Bhiraura page. The town itself is an obscure little place of no importance with half the people barely able to read and write. However Lalit Shastri researched the History of the lower caste people who were its first settlers along with Muslims, he cited original sources as well as published material from the extensive records and books here at the British Library.

But the Upper Caste Hindus of the RSS are busy distorting Indian History to fall in line with their own fascist agenda (google and do your own research) and leading Indian and foreign academics have written about it. This is what Sitush who vandalized the article did not like, history as it was, without the distorted RSS version. That the Muslims and India's lower caste Hindus co operated in this town. That the Muslims did not discriminate against the lower castes. That The Rajputs in the 18th century took away the lower caste freedoms in this little town

RSS fascism in India pretends all Hindus are united, they try and hide the dark underbelly of the horrors of the caste system. India's own slave period and shame. Muslims are demonized what user Sitush could not bear was that the history of the town as researched by Lalit shastri told the truthful tale of Muslims and untouchables cooperating. And the fact that Muslims treated the untouchable as an equal

This is why a little article on an unimportant town has produced this controversy, this is why we as academics take an interest here, we have seen these subtle distortions in the historical narrative if it goes against the ideology of the RSS (try googling RSS Fascism, or Hindutva fascism or Modi fascist).

In Wikepedia the most active and the most committed often get through their point of view. Many follow the RSS ideology in India. Its a middle class phenomenon and the RSS cadre is committed and evangelical, the views of this group often prevails. many in India subscribe to the Hindu nationalist ideals.

Wikepedia does have the same problems, with the Palestine page, the Israel page, the US tea party page and countless other pages. But a common consensus is reached with both sides adding to a controversial article. But user Sitush every time something was added or repaired, he did a undo, (see history of Singahi Bhiraura a page, Now all of us are new to wikipedia some of us have not even a user name, maybe we made mistakes in tackling user Situst who is a experienced wikipedia editor but not a good one as I have looked at all his edits from the past.

I hope Lalit Shastri is not too put off with the ban and will be able to restore his Singahi Bhiraura page off course with plenty of inline citations from published sources and user Sitush will not keep undoing his work

I hope you understand the issues from our side.

Rakeshvasishth (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

| 12 = User Sitush who is rather heavy handed with the revert button edited almost all of it out.

| 13 = This is what Sitush who vandalized the article did not like, history as it was, without the distorted RSS version.

| 14 = Muslims are demonized what user Sitush could not bear was that the history of the town as researched by Lalit shastri told the truthful tale of Muslims and untouchables cooperating.

| 15 = But user Sitush every time something was added or repaired, he did a undo, (see history of Singahi Bhiraura

| 16 = maybe we made mistakes in tackling user Situst who is a experienced wikipedia editor but not a good one as I have looked at all his edits from the past.

| 17 = I hope Lalit Shastri is not too put off with the ban and will be able to restore his Singahi Bhiraura page off course with plenty of inline citations from published sources and user Sitush will not keep undoing his work

What a god-send for the generator, huh? Priceless. You couldn't make this stuff up. --RexxS (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rakeshvasishth, I'll have to reply to you later, sorry, but I will reply. I'm awfully busy in real life right now. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

OK, finally, sorry about the delay. You're mistaken, the crux of the issue is the sock puppetry which violates one of Wikipedia's core policies. I explained in my block notice on Lalithshastri's page that I had blocked him for abusing multiple accounts, and I linked to the relevant CheckUser report, but it's like neither he nor you read the block notice. Neither of you have addressed the block reason I gave. It's in your interest to read the sock puppet report I've linked to, because I have now blocked your account indefinitely with reference to it. Note that the accusation of "sock puppetry" doesn't necessarily claim that one individual runs both the accounts. It can also mean that you're editing based on real life collaboration, and not for good or innocent purposes. The relevant part of the sock puppetry policy is here, and I've blocked you as a sock in that sense. Bishonen | talk 15:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Courtesy notice

Hi Bishonen. I just noticed your name has been mentioned at the main dramaboard, and you have not yet been notified! The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive832#Multiple Vandalism. Love the new complaint generator, by the way. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. [Obsessively:] Perhaps you'd like to make a clueless complaint about Sitush? I have to say it's a little disappointing that the dedicated board hasn't been used yet. You, Diannaa, are one of only.. uh.. a few users who have been granted access to the exclusive Extra Drmies option! Artistic new button design by the well-known RexxS now makes clicking for new complaints an almost sensual pleasure! Bishonen | talk 18:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I have to admit those buttons are hauntingly beautiful and I clicked them many times, both the standard complaint and the Extra Drmies (I did not realise that Extra Drmies was an exclusive offer! such an honour). But I think the actual clueless complaining should be left to the official Independent Wikepedia investigators who have the time to conduct an investigation on all his Wikipedia edits. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pejorative of the harlot

We all mangle our English from time to time but "As the saying goes to exercise power without responsibility is the pejorative of a harlot." is an absolute classic. Is there any way to get that in the generator without seeming to be mocking? - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of mangling that is closer to home, I had to take my mum to hospital yesterday and, as happens when they get older, it was a lengthy day. On the way home, six hours later, she announced that she was "shackered". Obviously couldn't make her mind up whether she was shattered or knackered. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be done, unfortunately; I don't see any way of doing it without mocking the English. Actually I copyedit the Generator quite a bit for language, as here. That said, the pejorative of a harlot is a real classic among malapropisms. :-) I hope your mother is doing better! Bishonen | talk 13:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It reminds me of what Dorothy Parker said when asked to use the word "horticulture" in a sentence...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree. I have no idea what was meant by "pejorative of a harlot". But it sounds amazing. Risker (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic articles changes

Please take a look at user Maxx Fordhams name changes of several Olympic topic articles. Such as the Winter Olympic Games. The user also throw tantrums at talk pages calling users "crybabies" :). He has been warned and blocked before for similar behaviour. In my opinion atleast you do not change article names of several major articles without talk page discussions first. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the user a strong warning. Bishonen | talk 11:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. He now responded to your warning. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of my talk page by babbaq

Erase this if you like. But hey, I guess you don't have an alert to new material on my talk page. Can I alert you here just like when someone else writes on my page, without being blocked?

babba Seems to think that while there's something supposedly "wrong" with my writing on his/her page, it's still "okay" for her/him to throw tantrums on mine, falsely accusing me of "throwing tantrums," and acting as if he/she were an admin when he/she is obviously not (because he/she has to ask you for help with her/his bidding). Now where is the "balance" in that?

Will you please warn babbaq into not vandalizing my page, and block him or her if s/he continues?

Oh, also, please read what I wrote about the accident I had on babba's user page and why I blanked it (but should have just reverted). OK?

"Maxx Fordham"

I find it sad to see that you still do not get what Wikipedia is all about Maxx. You take everything so personal and you react with tantrums instead of responding in a respectful tone. Now please move on with your Wikipedia-life and start doing edits correctly and stop wasting Bishonens time with these kind of comments. And please start signing your comments. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, still not reacting with tantrums, dude. And yes, I DO know what Wikipedia is about. It's about trying to clean up articles without messing them up, which is what I understood that I was doing.

Also, if you expect someone else to move on (especially since you are not an admin), then you need to move on too. Hey, now you're vandalizing bishonen's page. If you can consider what someone else does as "vandalism," then I can think the same thing about what you do, can I not?

I'm not wasting bishonen's time requesting that you not vandalize my page. If you can request it and get it, then I can too, can I not?

And how do you get notifications of talking on someone else's talk page?

I did not ask Bishonen to block you. I asked him to look at your edits which I personally find to be inappropriate. He agreed with me and gave you a warning. I really do not see your point. Anyhow I am off this discussion you are unwilling to even show even the lowest level of decency towards other users sadly. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have Bishonens talk page at my watchlist since a while back :) And also it is very easy to follow your trail of indecent comments towards other users at their respective talk page. So there you have it my friend. I will not respond further ... not into feeding....--BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you complained at launchballer for what you falsely called "vandalism," then, and he/she threw that warning. I guess I should have asked him/her for that service also.

Where do you get the idea that I'm supposedly "still" making so-called "indecent comments"? I'm only now doing what you were doing, calling your writings on my talk page vandalism and tantrums just like you were doing on mine. So you want to be implying that your responses are indecent too, then?

Well, I have to respond to outright lies. I have not contacted Launchballer about you. Please provide the link to that comment. I only contacted Bishonen. :) Perhaps you should focus more on why Bish and Launchballer warned you independently of each other, than me contacted Bish about your behavior. You have recieved warnings for a reason. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on Maxx's page. But please note, Maxx, that your very header to this section is a personal attack. Please stop. (And, no, you can hardly blame Babba for calling your blanking of his userpage vandalism. It sure looked like it, although I accept the explanation you later gave.) Keep this on your own page from now on, please. It's merely confusing to spread a conversation over several pages. Bishonen | talk 12:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

We'll continue on my talk page, BISHONEN (not babbaq), but for the record here, it doesn't make sense that it's "okay" for him to say that I was "vandalizing" his page and not be considered as giving a personal attack if you call it a "personal attack" when I called what he was doing vandalism. What's with the double-standard, man?

Okay then, babbaq, so the "Launchballer" just suddenly "came out of nowhere"? How would he have known about my responses on your page and wanted to consider them the same lame false term as you considered them if you hadn't said something to him?

Comment for Maxx

Bish please post this message at Maxxs talk page instead. I do not want to see a response from him ever again at my talk page. Hope you understand. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do go for a walk or something, Babba. I said on your page that I would post the warning on Maxx's page as well, and I have. I explicitly told him not to respond to it on your page. I've removed your paste of my warning above, since I think it was kind of confusing for other people — with my sig on it, it looked like something I had myself posted here. Anyway, I'm going for a walk right now. Nice weather in these parts! Bishonen | talk 14:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Enjoy your walk. I am enjoying a huuuge sandwich :)--BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made a comment earlier today at user Mark Millers talk page. As he mentioned me not responding to that person anymore once again while I already had agreed to that 20hrs earlier by you and Acro. Also mentioned you in the post so I guess I better notify you about it as well. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Coincidentally, I just saw Mark Miller's ping of you on Maxx's talk, and wrote him a rather strongly worded comment. Mark pinging you in that manner was really baiting, calling you back to that page when you had already disengaged, but I'm sure he didn't do it on purpose. See my comment to him. I'm glad you resisted turning up there to respond to him, well done. I suggest you disengage from Mark's page now as well. Bishonen | talk 17:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with you Mark did not do it on purpose. But he took Maxx words as the truth and wasted time by not reading through the previous posts apparently. Anyway, back to disengaging from the situation :)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of post

Good morning Bishonen,
I appreciate your intervention at Hpj's. My reason for removing that post was just as you commented in your edit summary, but perhaps you realised that. I take a fatherly interest in this charming editor who works so passionately with this project not in his first language. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know! Yes, he's passionate, and it's a shame his fire was snuffed out at sv. You may help yourself to a few of Hafspajen's cakes at the top of this page, Gareth. Yet another Swedish weirdo, 11:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Good choice. Incidentally, tomorrow's Saturday, the day I give a class in cake ~~eating~~ appreciation in Bishzilla's pocket. You're most welcome to join. Learn all about the deliciousness of cakes! (Trying to imagine the fate of such a page, or even such a sock, on sv.wiki. I suppose we are kind of silly on en.) Bishonen | talk 12:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

All good fun. Long may it last! Thank you for the link. It is now on my Watchlist for future notice, but with the three international games tomorrow (Six Nations Rugby Union final day) amounting to six hours of non-stop television ... well, I am sure you get my drift.
Have a great weekend! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your explanation. I'm sure you are right. Unfortunately, though, the diplomatic language you refer to was not helpful to me, coming in as an outsider, not having seen the full history. However, such is life. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with edits?

Hi, a question re Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2: You endorsed jps' outside view, which said, among other things, that Wikipedia "would be better off if the two editors endorsing the RfC were banned from these topics" (said topics, I assume, being the areas where QG's conduct is indicted in the RfC; it's unclear). AFAIK, I've had virtually no interaction with you, but assume you must have reviewed my edits (and block log etc.), and those of Mallexikon (the other RfC endorser), or you wouldn't have endorsed such a strong statement. Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly? What have we done that's that bad? Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are. I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too! Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've sent this question to all the endorsers (or most? never mind.). My endorsement was a while ago (one month); I checked diffs at the time but I'm afraid I'm not willing to go back and do in-depth research at this point. The topic I was thinking of was acupuncture. I remember I was pretty disappointed with the lists of ANIs and ANs you supplied as evidence for QG's disruptiveness since they go right back to 2007 and stop in 2011 — that's effectively no evidence at all, you know, and creates the impression that all you have is old stuff. (I'm thinking of going to the RfC and saying so). Anyway, since it was recent evidence, I looked with particular interest at the thread "Rate of serious adverse events" from Talk:Acupuncture which you had adduced as evidence of QG's refusal to listen in the RfC.[8] Using reasonably recent medical sources is pretty paramount, compare WP:MEDRS, and in that thread you insist on using a source from 2004 in preference to the more recent reviews you say it's consistent with. I'm sorry, but to me your own posts in that thread give the very picture of a POV-warrior refusing to yield an inch. Further, my impression is that you have a conflict of interest as regards acupuncture. Bishonen | talk 19:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Eh

How came that Afternoon Tea is a picture while Afternoon tea is called something like so silly as Tea(meal) with only one section called Afternoon tea? Was there any intelligent reason for this? I think tea (meal) should be one article and Afternoon tea as the British tradition - a differen. [9]Hafspajen (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All our mealtime articles are messes. People keep putting OR into them, on the lines of "but this is how we do it in Sundbyberg, what are you talking about?" "Tea" as a meal is a particularly slippery concept, especially indeed British usage itself, the shades of which are imbued with social class. There is no way you can inveigle me into commenting on any meal article, or any meal, except the cake orgy in Bishzilla's pocket. Thanks for livening the talkpage there. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Quite so!! mess Hafspajen (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Q

Bear Dish, I have a little question. I can't find, here or on the sv-wiki, an article for Boda--that is, Boda the village, the parish, the whatever (there's Bodahamn and Bodasand, if I remember correctly). I'd like to at least have a proper red link for "Vikens betydelse som hamnplats för Böda socken kan knappast underskattas", which I'm about to stick in Grankullaviken, written in honor of <redacted>. Tack så mycket! Drmies (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind--stupid umlaut. sv:Böda. That leaves the problem of whether and how to translate sv:Böda socken; we don't even have Socken (former Swedish administrative and ecclesiastical subdivision). We have Parishes of Sweden, but that links to sv:Svenska kyrkans församlingar, not to their sv:Socken. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parishes of Sweden is so simplified as to be no use for this. Having read sv:Socken, an Utmärkt Artikel, I think you should keep the word socken, with quote marks when it's on its own, because socken and församling aren't the same. I thought they were, but there you are. sv:Socken#Sockenindelningens användning i Sverige idag is quite interesting, especially this bit: "På senare år har det framförts krav från flera riksdagspartier, myndigheter och organisationer att socknen, och inte Svenska kyrkans församlingsindelning, skall utgöra den minsta enheten i folkbokföringen. Dessa krav har motiverats dels med att Svenska kyrkan numera är skild från staten och folkbokföringen därmed bör vara sekulär, dels med att Svenska kyrkans allt snabbare och mer omgripande församlingssammanslagningar innebär att en månghundraårig indelning av landet hotas, då församlingarna alltmer sällan överensstämmer med socknarna, särskilt i storstäder." (Translation for talkpage stalkers: It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents, except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the house-tops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness. Through one of the obscurest quarters of London, and among haunts little loved by the gentlemen of the police, a man, evidently of the lowest orders, was wending his solitary way.) Grankullaviken is a delight, congratulations! Bishonen | talk 10:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for Bishonen for removing the uncalled for reference to me above. It's great that you take a stand against experienced users unable to move on. Lets leave it at that. Luttrad (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]