User talk:Bishonen

Note: I have page-banned myself from WP:ANI for three months in the hope of regaining some patience with the uselessness of so much of the commentary there. If I should forget and post there, my friendly stalkers and everybody else are urged to remove the post. Bishonen | talk 10:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia 3 times. And the last admin blocked by Jimbo. The LAST. Don't trifle with her.

Userbox barnstar

Awarded by DHeyward

10:19, 2 September 2015‎

only back

for a few things. i pretty much gave up on wiki. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC

I kinda feel that he is following me around. IMHO. Even nominated one of my articles for deletion out of nowhere. [1] CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbygate

Hi. I noticed your comments on Gabby Merger's Talk page, so I thought I would also draw your attention to this discussion, starting from here. Though I have frequently disagreed with Gabby in the past, she sought to draw me into her dispute with Jeppiz, continued the 'discussion' after I clearly indicated I was not interested in continuing, and then finished with a 'reminder' about my 'typical hasty arrogance', my "horrendous attitude", my "cold attitude" and how my "brain and biases won't allow" me to be 'nice' except "Maybe only with fellow anti-JWs, or anti-Bible types, and atheists perhaps". If you think any of my comments in the discussion were not appropriate, please let me know. This is not a specific request for admin action.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Your typical hasty arrogance? Hmm. I'll take a look. Gabby knows now, or should know, that she's not allowed to attack people. Bishonen | talk 14:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

If you get particularly bored, you could also review the discussion now archived at User_talk:Jeffro77/Archive2015b#edits (and that's without the four time I had to prune it at the end[2][3][4][5]).--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine, thanks — the recent stuff will do me. I have posted a final warning on Gabby's page. In an attempt to fix the {{hat}} business, I tried to add a {{hab}} to close the hat, but that only made everything worse, presumably because there are other hats on the page. Groan. I don't really feel like spending the best years of my life straightening it out, especially considering I don't even know what kind of hatting she was trying to achieve, and may merely disoblige her if I try to help. So now my final warning post is invisible on the page along with everything else ... I hope she reads it through the history. I suppose my kind talkpage stalkers wouldn't like to help? But please note I don't guarantee you'll get any thanks from the user. Bishonen | talk 15:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

PS, John Carter took care of it. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, there was one {{hat}} nested inside another. I think she saw a 'hatted' section on my Talk page and decided to do the same, but maybe didn't realise you have to {{hab}} them. I had some trouble following Gabby's reationale of deleting two large seemingly arbitrary blocks of discussion and then hatting other large chunks, but I shall leave that for her to sort out. After the recent rollercoaster of, essentially, 'I don't like you, but I want your opinion, and I still don't like you', I'm a bit worn out trying to work with her.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you shouldn't try. That's definitely my advice. I understand you may edit the same pages and their article talkpages, but if I were you I really wouldn't encourage her to come to your page any more, or post on hers. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I've deliberately stayed out of any contact with the user for days, hoping it would lead to tensions cooling down. Unfortunately the user continues making their WP activity mostly about me by the discussion this afternoon at Jeffro77's talk page. [6]. Their continued posting at Jeffro77's talk page after Jeffo77 has told them repeatedly to stay away follows the same pattern. Jeppiz (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I just warned her to leave him alone. Bishonen | talk 15:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Feedback

Hi Bish I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on my ANI report [7] that I feel was not dealt with properly and was closed unfairly. I took alot of abuse on that ANI that I feel was wrong and unacceptable. I'm not asking you to comment on ANI, I'm asking for feedback on what you think and how you feel on it because I really do not understand it at all. Thank you. Caden ^cool 18:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A thorough review of the history of that section, and the comments related to it elsewhere, would probably be reasonable if you are to do so. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bish is a trusted admin who is fair and does her job properly. You have no need to worry. BTW could you please stop following me around John and stop commenting on my ANI report? I do not like it. Caden ^cool 18:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Caden, it's too complicated for me, and basically I agree with Sarah here. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Its ok Bish, I no longer care anymore. I feel like quitting for good. Thanks anyway. Caden ^cool 23:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's no fun, Caden. I hope you cheer up in a bit. Bishonen | talk 08:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

(watching:] Caden, read in the spirale of justice wisdom from 1510, and don't expect it to change, certainly not in the WP:Great Dismal Swamp. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Bish its very hard to do that when the same crap from yesterday has continued in to today. And Gerda thanks for that link. It was interesting. Caden ^cool 19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which link? Or both? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ps: for an educated cry you may quote my latest cantata, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was the first link Gerda. Caden ^cool 20:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the DYK hook on the talk, which I kept on my talk. Every time I look at your talk, I think you look like that pictured person ;) - I have a cat instead - also crying out, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for steering me in the right direction re Benjamin Genocchio. Penelope1114 (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neat barnstar! Thank you! Bishonen | talk 15:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much Bishonen. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you

Bishonen, why would my revision to Benjamin Genocchio be reverted when the content is factual, reliably referenced and an improvement to the stub that previously existed? Other editors could improve upon those statements which could be more encyclopedic in tone while leaving a more informative article in place. Really appreciate your time and thoughts here. Penelope1114 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot to ask of other editors that they follow you around and tweak your additions on the page itself. And so, instead, they revert. I can understand that. I mean, you realize they're not being paid for their work. Like several other people, I've been urging you to follow best practice and propose changes on the talkpage, and then discuss them there. I haven't seen you respond to this suggestion, so I'll try to demonstrate with an example why the necessary discussion can't be carried out via edit summaries (and absolutely not via reverts back and forth); it needs to be hammered out on talk.

Here's one point: it's not only a matter of style, but of proportion. In how great detail should facts and opinions be covered? As an example, I'm concerned about the section you called "International focus and art criticism".[8] I don't doubt that Genocchio has said that his art evaluation process begins with his belief that “artwork can channel the spiritual, challenge the mind and stimulate the senses,” or that “making art is one of the final arenas where there’s true freedom of expression". He's said it in interviews, these are quotes. But should they be reported in his Wikipedia bio? Not in my opinion. Also, when you describe these views, you often do it as it were from inside Genocchio's head — "Genocchio’s art evaluation process begins with his belief that" — "When Genocchio critiques a work of art, he considers", etc. As opposed to "Genocchio has said that his art evaluation process begins with his belief that “artwork can channel the spiritual, challenge the mind and stimulate the senses,” "Genocchgio has decribed.." etc. The sources are reliable, for statements that Genocchio has made in them, but interviews in, say The Weekend Australian, a lifestyle magazine, don't exactly tend to show the notability of such self-descriptions. In my opinion. I would remove the second and third paragraph in that section altogether. (As well as change the "meaningless-variation" artsy word "penned" in the first.) Please present your overhaul a section at a time on the talkpage. Also, it's better to put more general discussion on the talkpage too. I mean, you are absolutely welcome on my page, but the question you have asked me would actually go better on article talk. For more eyes. I think I'll go there now and put a link to our interchange. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]