User talk:Bishonen

Friday

17

May

00:39 UTC

				File:Animalibrí.gif
Bishonen is semi-retired.		The MONGO Ursus americanus.		The Giano flutterer.
File:Irpen reka.jpg
The Irpen river.		The Geogre flower.		The Arctic Balloon arctic balloon.

Bookmarks

articles ice fire emigration diffs and links moods bishzilla warning templates removing warnings non-apology apology

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

The El Commandante goldenchip.

OK?

Are you OK? Your emails are bouncing back? C'mon life is never that bad. Look at me! Wilipedia needs your insight, perceptivenes, intellect and wit? At least let us know you are still incommunicado. Giano (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It needs what? (What do you want to borrow?) I need a little time off, that's all. E-mail's a great way to savage somebody. Don't worry, Giacomo. It's only the Internet. It'll pass. Look at the wikibreak sunset photo, it's a bit like something by the Skagen painters. I'll be back in a few days. Bishonen | talk 21:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC).

A comment

I have posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence that is largely directed at you.

I disagree with your characterization that "George has not wheel-warred", but significantly the reason I disagree is more a semantic one than a factual one. We appear to have different conceptions of what defines a "wheel war". While I can't speak for him, this may relate to Sir Fozzie's opinion as well. Dragons flight (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Åse Kleveland

Wikinews is doing an interview with former Norwegian Culture Minister Åse Kleveland, and I would really like your input. Please, if you have time, think up some questions that we could ask Ms. Kleveland. The page for submissions is here. I'm going to be wrapping up the call for questions on Friday evening, so please get back to me ASAP. Hope everything is well with you! Mike H. Fierce! 03:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw you responded below, so I know you're there...can I get a response please? Mike H. Fierce! 17:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Trout/Rose

Is this what you had in mind? Tex (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Aahhh, very lovely. I confess I was secretly hoping somebody would take me up on it. You've done it perfectly. Now give yourself one! (Just the rose in your case.) Bishonen | talk 17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC).

Actually, I think it looks pretty silly. I just took two wiki pictures and slapped them together and drew a line for the stem. Someone will probably delete it soon, so enjoy it while you can! Tex (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See! Told ya they would be deleting it soon. Does anyone who watches this page know about image descriptions? Should I just say "I took two public domain pictures and manipulated them"??? Any help would be appreciated. Tex (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty well. Link to the images (I assume they're from Commons) in your description, and add what you have said above. Your PD release should be fine. The editor who put the notice on your page might be able to help too. Risker (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I only noticed the problem after reading your comment above and being curious why anyone would care to delete it. The first important point is to show us where those specific component images came from. Dragons flight (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to Risker and Dragons flight. Hopefully the new description will be OK. Sorry to be mucking up your page, Bish. Tex (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Long live the rose trout. Dragons flight (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Love the Rose Trout! Now may I have a picture of the little SirFozzie running away from Bishzilla, please?[1] Bishonen | talk 21:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC).

• And/or picture of little ArbCom eating worms? Zilla like this game ! [2] See little user properly intimidated here? [/Me breathe lightly on little Sir F, watch with interest as user start go brown round edges. Put gently down on floor.] Now... run! bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC).

Ha! I'd love to come up with some more pictures for the 'Zilla, but I'm off to celebrate the 4th. If no other creative-types beat me to it, I'll try to find your requested pics on Monday. Have a great weekend, Bishonen. Tex (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Risking being cursed for saying I ruined the layout, pictures, and plan...

I had to point out a moment I'm proud of: the last exchange on talk:The Dunciad. I actually could have used that question as a major teaching point, but I don't think the interlocutor wanted to learn. Geogre (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You're one of the good guys

I've withdrawn my overhasty remarks about you and apologise for being angry and frustrated. [3] I still have enormous respect for you. It's a shame I can't share your opinion on one matter but you're one of the good guys. See Dbachmann's comment there too. I hope there are no hard feelings and that you can understand from the entire context of the incident why I was so het up. Best. --Folantin (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Peace. Bishonen | talk 16:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC).

Re: Rfar, etc

Yeah, I saw your comment. Sorry if I sounded like I was hyperboling it. I'm not trying to knock anyone's contributions, least of all you guys, but I'm not sure exactly where you got that impression. If you point it out, I'll try and refactor? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's a misunderstanding. I didn't say you were knocking our contributions, but that your tone in referring to us was scornful and dismissive. See where I say that? Tone as in your choice of words. Your phrasing. "Everyone here is well-acquainted with Giano's drama shows and exactly who shows up where to defend him". "Diatribe." The scare quotes. Stuff like that. And that I wouldn't have expected it.

I appreciate the good intentions of the changes you have now made. But actually not the effect of them so much... which is, to make my own posts look nonsensical, both in the evidence and the workshop. I wish you would strike through your original instead. I think it's altogether proper, on an evidence page, to make it clear when stuff was written, which is why I dated my own addition in the heading. Certainly if someone has responded in the meantime. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC).

I put a link in to my original statement. I don't know what you mean by "scare quotes", I was just trying to point out that it's not just friends of Giano in the conventional sense, but a more encompassing group. Once again, I'm sorry for causing offense, but I guess it's just my interpretation about what Giano does- as soon as he gets blocked, or something happens, he evangelizes on his talk page about it and it does become a drama show, causing much more fuss than the actual incident (I blocked him in violation of 3rr for one hour and we got an ArbCom case out of that.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For scare quotes, see our article scare quotes. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC).

Ah, ok. But once again, I did not mean to demean you by some negative connotation (although looking back on it, I shoulda phrased it better so it did not appear so.) Semantics, semantics... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (oh, and you don't have to double post, I do check back on other people's talk pages!)

WMC block of Bardcom - timeline

Hi Bish. I posted a timeline at ANI. Partly because I realised that while you are right to say "WMC's diff shows that the warning was understood", there is a second and important extra condition - that the edit Bardcom was blocked for was after he saw the warning. It turns out that it was, but only just and more because the edit he made four minutes earlier to WMC's talk page (the templated warning edit) shows his awareness of the warning, not the near-simultaneous edits he made to the talk page and article. Would you agree with my statement at ANI that: "if Bardcom had not templated WMC, and Bardcom had reverted at the article before reading and editing the talk page, Bardcom could have quite legitimately argued that he hadn't seen the warning yet"? I know Bardcom didn't say that, but I'm bringing this up because this matter of 'was the block-triggering edit made after the editor saw the warning' is a point that gets missed sometimes (I think you or Geogre made the same argument that Geogre was busy writing a talk page message instead of resetting a certain block). The sequence should be: warning, sees warning, edit, block. Sometimes it is: warning, edit (half a minute later), block, "hey, I didn't see the warning!". It can also be (when the admin gets very confused, or spends a long time writing the warning): edit, warning, block (cue red faces all round). Or even: warning, edit (before seeing warning), responds to warning, block, "I was about to revert and apologise!". Anyway, just some things to think about, I suppose, and I still think the point should be made very forcefully that people should post warnings to user talk pages (for the orange bar) and ensure that enough time has passed for the orange bar to alert the editor. Sometimes, when writing long posts (like this one!), the orange bar doesn't alert an editor until many minutes after the warning was issued. Sometimes even longer if an edit window gets left open. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, gee—yes, sure. I did check those times before posting. These seem to me minor matters, and I would far sooner complain of the comment in the ANI discussion that "It was a three-hour block. Please get over yourself", as far as mistreatment of Bardcom goes. I detest that attitude. Blocks are big deals. Blocks hurt. All blocks. A three-hour block is not a matter of "preventing somebody from editing for three hours," as you sometimes see stated. I mean, I know of an editor, not especially sensitive, who still feels humiliated by a bad block by Betacommand in 2006. One really ought to catch up admins, every time, on such cavalier and callow notions. I certainly would have done, if HalfShadow had been an admin, and perhaps I should in any case. Bishonen | talk 06:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC).

You might also be interested in the discussion on my talk page about blocks and blocking philosophies. In particular the comments by User:Abd. I am thinking of investing in chairs and tea-making facilities and charging rent, so many people have come to my talk page this month! :-) I will have to make clear the shutters are down on that talk page when I go on wikibreak soon. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother, we will just show up and talk in your absence. No need to play host, we can take care of ourselves.  ;-) Risker (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

stray, unimportant question

your signature on giano's talk page today had the name 'Thompson'....what does it mean? if anything? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Good one, Bish! Funniest thing I've seen on WP in a while. Rocks&Dirt, try reading the thread from the beginning...Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

gah. that's what I get for not re-skimming the thread when I ask a stupid question....*sigh* --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

^_^ Bishonen | talk 21:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC).

Thanks

I saw your notes to the arbitrators. That is what alerted me to Kirill's moving of his proposals from workshop to proposed decision. Doesn't look like he changed anything or tried to provide any additional context or even acknowledge any of the Workshop discussion as all. Makes me wonder what the point was. I've posted here about that and some other points. Carcharoth (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Mhmm. Er...do you know how to make permanent links, Carcharoth? And the importance of using them in arbitration cases? See Simple diff and link guide (not just because I wrote it...:-)). Bishonen | talk 10:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

Yes, I do. I don't always, I admit. Where did I forget to use them? Are you say the headers in the arbitration case might change? Carcharoth (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, now I see you do, sorry. (But I got to mention the guide, haha!) I was worried by the links in your "Context and community" post here, that's all. No, I don't mean just the proposed decision headers. (Though certainly I think those might change! FT2 is always fiddling with them, for one thing.) It's just that [/me hastily and belatedly lays it on] your posts are important and much read, so it would be a great pity if there were dead links in them. Bishonen | talk 14:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

Maybe you forgot this? :-) I find your diff and link guide very helpful, but did you know there are ways round that? Try and link to a section in a new or old version of User talk:FayssalF... And thanks for the compliment! You were quite right to remind me to use permanent links, as I didn't do that in a few previous cases. Having said that, if there is ever another Giano case (heaven forbid!) I will be keeping out - I made a comment that the same people prosecute (or snipe from the sidelines each time), so if there is another case, I will merely point that out, request that those people let others have their say, and then watch from the sidelines. The next arbitration case I get involved in will hopefully not be for at least a month, and will be something completely different (in case that came across wrong, I'll just keep an eye on RfArb and see what looks interesting, not filing a case or anything horrendous like that). Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Just say no!

Just say no to... peanuts! And, be sure to drink plenty of fluids! [Then I ended up writing Opium and Alkaloid Works!] El_C 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Andree's Station at Danskoen, Spitzbergen, Norway

The other day I stumbled across this in an archive while I was searching for something else. Turned out to be fairly easy to restore. Best, Durova^Charge! 00:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had to look carefully to see it wasn't from the movie. I know the shape of the mountain used in the movie though—I live quite near it—and, no, that's got to be the real Spitzbergen. Bishonen | talk 14:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

Streuth!

Got any gin? 5 parts with one part vermouth would hit the spot, tonight. Giano (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Have some brännvin, the both of you! Bishonen | talk 20:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

[It's all getting too much for Bishzilla. Bursts appallingly into drinking ditty in her ancient native tongue :]

Hurra för Svealand

Hurra för Götaland

Å hurra för potatisland

som gav oss brännevin!

som gav oss brännevin!

bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

I-totally understood that. Which brings me to my next point: more scratching groundhog behind ear & rescuing a baby bunny, less bad things! El_C 09:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Idiotbot

Could you have a quick peek at this deleted image [4], I'm sure it's one that has been deleted before, and that I took from a vaporetto, if it is a lopsided palazzo, across the canal clearly taken from a boat by an amateur photographer could you undelete it, on the premise that any image is better than none. It has even been speedied FGS [5], is it a wonder I get bad tempered? Thank you. Giano (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The mouse that ate the palazzo.

I've started trying to, but as you can see the situation is a little complex. Can't you re-upload it yourself, with a rationale about it being self-created, if you took it and have it? Bad-tempered? Who? Never! Bishonen | talk 09:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

No I can't because all the old fotos are in a cardboard boxes in the attics, being eaten by mice, untill such time as I decide to catalogue them, and I don't know where to start looking. Giano (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, the above is the best I can do, then. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

Re: Image problem

Hi, Melesse. I see that you have speedied the image , with the comment (Speedy deleted per (CSD I7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago. using TW). User:Giano—who is not the uploader—has asked me to restore it, because he thinks (from the amateurish quality) that it must be a self-taken photo, although it was apparently uploaded with an erroneous Fair Use rationale. Going to look, I intended to write to the uploader, Habanerosrl and ask him/her to re-upload it, this time with a proper rationale, if he has indeed taken the photo himself. But I'm flummoxed by seeing that Habanerosrl's talkpage is a redlink. Nobody has ever sent any notification to it, as far as I can understand. So, well, how can he have been notified more than 48 hours ago..? And is there any point in me creating the talkpage and posting on it? I must have missed something here. Can you throw any light, and assist us in getting the image back, if possible? Giano's viewpoint is that the page needs it. Bishonen | talk 09:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

Ugh... This again. I wish people would read, the upload prompt pops up a big red warning saying that pictures of living people and existing buildings can't have a fair use license. So of course there's no notification, the upload form assumes (wrongly) that people will read the warning and stop there. Do go ahead with asking them to re-upload with a proper license though. Melesse (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. But I hope you won't mind me saying that it would be a good idea to stop saying the uploader was notified, if they weren't. (Twinkle isn't responsible for anything you say; you are.) I mean, either stop saying it or (better) start doing it. Regards, Bishonen | talk 09:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

Civility and baiting

There is a discussion here in which your insights and opinions, particularly about baiting, may be able to provide important touchpoints for people to be thinking about. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

very interesting thread from wikipedia review

[6] I suppose wikipedia policy does not have jurisdiction offsite.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

ROFLing Ralph Rolfing

I found another dunce who deserves consideration: James Ralph. I wonder if his Touchstone could be dug up in one of those PD sources. It seems like a hot document. (Battestin makes much of it.) I've done two others, too, but they're not that interesting. Why? I don't know why I'm still writing articles. Someone asked me, so I did. Other than that, I really don't. Geogre (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Poetry and the project

While there should be some ramifications for bad poetry, alas there's not. S. Dean Jameson 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He's nothing compared to Mrs. Kittridge, who wrote, upon visiting Westminster Abbey:

Holy Moses, take a look!

Brains and brawn in every nook.

I encountered her in an essay on camp, and I've got to admit, short of newspaper poets who commemorated local tragedies, she takes the prize. Geogre (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ouch! McG's bad, but... sheesh! S. Dean Jameson 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In honor of this, I went looking at the Internets, and it seems that there are far too many collectors of "bad poetry" out there. If the authors are just intraweb dweebs trying to be bad, it doesn't count! The only one that seemed to be actual bad poetry from actual publications in actual little (shall we say "very little?") magazines, was this one. What is depressing about it is that it is what one actually sees submitted. What cheers me is that I know of some people who I shall force to read it. Geogre (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Veropedia

I noticed in your recent edit to Veropedia that you had removed an external link which was dead (HTTP 404 error). As noted on Wikipedia:Dead external links, it is best not to simply remove dead links as they often contain valuable information.

I recommend using the Link checker tool found at toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Checklinks to tag or repair dead links. I have ran this tool already and marked the link as dead.

Hope that helps. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 22:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Bishy!

I can't tell you what a pleasure it is to hear from you...and I really appreciate the trout.  :) Please feel free to stay in touch. Wikipedia is a lonely place without the likes of you and Geogre. Miss you both much. Yours, Lucky 6.9 in his secret guise of --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC), international man of intrigue!

WP:AN/I

Thank you for your succinct and, I thought, on-target defense, especially your calm demolition of absurdity of feeling entitled because someone has the admin bit.

And if I've been rude to you, I apologize. I honestly don't recall being such, and I'd hate to think it was true, as you are an admin who as far as I'm concerned, universally has her head screwed on properly. Except for the whole "destroying Tokyo" thing, which plays hob with the property values. --Calton | Talk 14:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Calton prejudiced favour of Tokyo, that is whole thing! 'Zilla enjoy stomping! Leave 'Zilla harmless hobby! bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC).

Oh dear, what a mess

Have you seen this melodrama? I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Arghhhh! ['Zilla lift majestic foot to stomp] Hah! RFC smithereens! bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC).

I added a few tidbits, but it surely won't come to any sort of clear result. Jehochman ^Talk 00:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

See, I was right! User:Thebainer has deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. RFCs are such a waste of time. I am sorry I bothered. Jehochman ^Talk 06:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the general principle that RfCs are a waste of time, this situation brings to light an important gap in our dispute resolution process. That is, there is no effective way of addressing patterns of behaviour that are seen over several discrete situations rather than one isolated locus. This is particularly noticeable with any RfC involving administrative actions. It gives the community no opportunity to provide feedback to the administrator about its concerns over time, meaning that the only effective way for the community to bring forward concerns about a pattern of behaviour in an administrator is for one or more community members to bring the issue to the Arbitration Committee with a Request for Arbitration. That strikes me as excessively dramatic when sometimes all that is needed is to give the admin a wake-up call. Of course, I have never seen an RfC about a specific editor or administrator really solve the highlighted problem, so I suppose it's spitting into the wind to complain about what is and isn't covered by the process. Risker (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What was the deletion reason? Supposedly uncertified RFC? Anyway...in the case of admins up for recall, there is another rather obvious remedy, nicht wahr? I haven't followed this case to the extent of knowing whether recall would be reasonable; but I must say I was rather sorry to see Elonka's unpreparedness to acknowledge or take on board anything problematic at all about her approach. Her total defensiveness. Yet I must agree that that is what usually happens. People humbly reconsidering their own practices is the rarity. Bishonen | talk 07:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

• • Immediately deleting the talkpage too, before the issue is resolved?[7] No, see, we don't do that. My pet admin has restored the talkpage for now, in order to have a venue for people to comment on a contested deletion. Do not re-delete the talk until the issue is resolved. Bishonen | talk 08:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

An interesting diff

I'm actually going to be a boring admin, doing the dull backlog kind of stuff. ;) And I'll still be in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. All it will take is six good faith editors making a complaint about my use of admin tools at my talkpage, and I will voluntarily resign. But I'm not worried about it, because I'm not planning to use admin tools in controversial ways. :) --Elonka 08:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC) [8]

It does seem like she has said one thing and proceeded to do the exact opposite. What do you make of it? Jehochman ^Talk 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh. She just assumes anyone who disagrees with her is acting in bad faith. I guess she'd say her jumping in to do an ignore all rules sort of thing and enforcing 0RR on a controversial article in which she coaches people how to act is not a controversial thing at all and that others are unfairly trying to present it as controversial. I've known her for years, and she has a remarkable inability to admit that any opinion other than her own has any possible validity. 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs)

Actually, the reason that I'm getting into the Israel/Palestine stuff at all, is because ArbCom appointed me to the Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. I did not volunteer for it, I only heard about it after the fact.[9] So ArbCom asked the group to analyze areas of perennial dispute, and identify ways to deal with the problem. Which is exactly what we are doing. I've actually had considerable success in calming disputes at articles that had been in a state of open warfare for a long time. If anyone knows of an article that "no one can figure out how to deal with," please point me at it, I'll be happy to give it a shot, and you can observe firsthand how the technique works. See also Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes, a page that resulted from WorkGroup discussions. --Elonka 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting news. I think you need to patch up relationships with some of the editors who are criticizing you before you dive into new projects. People have concerns. If you take the time to explain things to them, and to listen to what they have to say, I think that would really help. Jehochman ^Talk 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not on my page, she won't.[10] Get lost, Elonka. Bishonen | talk 18:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

Questions

Is this sort of cross posting customary? [11] In addition, do you think it was right for User:Seicer to remove the SPA tag from that sock puppet User:Fat Cigar? Jehochman ^Talk 19:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not quite at ease with the precise wording of her message, it sounds like it may be considered canvassing because of its lack of neutrality.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There are thousands of users who could post notices if any were needed. Why exactly would the subject of the RFC do this, except to gain some sort of tactical advantage? In light of recent attempts by Elonka to have the RFC deleted (which failed), it is reasonable to conclude that the wikilawyering strategy is being continued.Jehochman ^Talk 20:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's come to that (in my mind, at least), but how does one go about requesting recall? I think there's enough here to at least ask.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away. There is still hope that advice will be heard and adjustments will be made. Jehochman ^Talk 21:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Wait and see.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Whoops, didn't notice this section, sorry. Jonathan, post at the bottom of the page, please... I don't know if the crossposting is customary. It's not the end of the world, though, is it? I don't see how it can yield much of a tactical advantage. But I certainly have an opinion about that ridiculous sock: that it should be tagged and strongly encouraged to get the hell out of the RFC. And checkusered, if anybody has an idea who it is (I don't). I put a note where it appeared on the talkpage; there should be one on the main page, too. Anybody removing a sock tag from it needs to be told off, that's my opinion. Ramdrake, instructions for recall are here. But please note that Elonka's recall criterion, from her RFA, is "All it will take is six good faith editors making a complaint about my use of admin tools at my talkpage". Now, are the present concerns to do with Elonka's use of the admin tools? She uses her adminship, yes, to throw her admin weight around; but the tools? Not so much, surely? To issue a page ban, for instance, doesn't involve using any tools. On the other hand, I don't know a lot about what's been going down. As I keep telling Elonka and others, I not only haven't studied the RFC, I haven't even fucking read it. I've glanced at it! Sorry I missed you guys. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Regarding the sock, try User:Centrum99 first, or any of the indef-blocked users from last fall: Fourdee, MoritzB, Phral, etc. And thanks for the feddback.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Or this mess?

Reading The History of Sir Charles Grandison is almost as bad as reading The History of Sir Charles Grandison. The article is mysteriously finished, DYK, and assessed high importance and B, and yet all without complying to English grammar. I don't care about its author, but if it's going to be "high" and "B," it really should read as if literate. Geogre (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Now I expect to be called names for doing so. I was shocked to find out that it's a counter to Amelia. Given that the debate between those two novels, to the degree that it can be discerned, is a very thin-air discrepancy between two versions of human psychology, and given that we today reject both of them, it's hard to see it as much of an answer novel. Geogre (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Commonly called Grandison ? Que? I've never seen it called Grandison. Who made that up? Bishonen | talk 17:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

Possibly the person who made up "verisimilitude" to mean "fiction surrounding the author." As in, "Richardson claimed to be the editor, but he soon dropped this verisimilitude." I am only surprised that the sentence didn't get an award from the people who know so much about content. (Again, for those just tuning in: mistakes are fine! Mistakes are normal! Just don't be pretentious. Don't make up citations, either, like "Flynn 149-19," and be cautious with vast statements.) I've never heard the novel called "Grandison". I've seen serial references in criticism use it as an abbreviated title, but that's no more "commonly known as" than a critic's last name, which is frequently a second or third reference handle, how the person "is known." I had to descale passives, too. At any rate, if the fellow deals with these improvements properly, I'll be surprised. Geogre (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Those Pesky Bots

Ms. Bish,

I would not presume to edit your page for you, but I noticed you might be annoyed by those pesky bots signing posts on your page. Perhaps putting {{bots|deny=all}} on the page will work. The {{NoAutosign}} tag you have actually only keeps that pesky sinebot from signing your posts for you, it doesn't affect what others do on your page. I'm not sure why your {{nobots}} tag is not working but maybe the deny all will work for you. Tex (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, Tex. Er. [Wheedlingly.] You fix? Please presume! Bishonen | talk 15:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Now we wait and see. Oh.. wait. How about we try it out right now? As in, you write me a message and "forget" to sign it? :-) Da 'Zilla will appreciate! Bishonen | talk 16:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

I can do that. Please don't sign this, thank you.

I need assistance too, I have recently had a robotic attack on my own page. I am left feeling quite shaken by the experience. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, great, you have beaten them, Tex! :-D And my dear Lady Catherine... it's that "no fair use images in userspace" thing, I expect. Let me suggest that you post a complaint on that charming young Giacomo's page—you know him? User talk:Giano II. It's a great place for getting assistance! I'm sure image-savvy people will rush to do your bidding as soon as they hear the distressing circumstances. Positively droves of them. Nobody reads my modest page, you know. (Snort.)Bishonen | talk 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

• • Yes, your page is modest and humble by comparassion, but I cannot bother such an important person as poor dear Giacomo with my silly minor womanly problems. We women must keep our trivia from our menfolk, who have so many more important things to worry about - don't you agree? The mere thought of his darkly tanned good looks coupled with that muscular honed and toned body exuding power and strength leaves me all of a tremble. He reminds me so of my beloved young Benito Amilcare Andrea in his prime. I still weep. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah! Giacomo! Solebaciato! [/me loses herself in pleasant reverie. ] And I know how you treasure this unique footage of your dear Benito coming to offer you his heart, Lady C, accompanied by an unknown friend and watched by an interested crowd. Ah, the romance..! [/me trembles, too ] Bishonen | talk 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

• Given the conversation at the next table today at the restaurant, I am of the impression that the menfolk are even more interested in darkly tanned good looks and toned bodies than we women. Based on their nearly clinical descriptions, I'd hardly venture to suggest they consider these factors trivial.  ;-) Risker (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have to take the romance where you can find it! Bishonen | talk 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Romance has never been a problem for me, with my looks and talents; I only have to click my fingers in that department. Few who have heard my latest recording of romantic songs, entitled: "Lady Catherine singing, accompanied by an Alpenhorn" have been able to overcome their emotions. I recently sent poor dear Jimbo a copy to help him relax, only I suffer more than he! Confidentiality forbids me posting his reply, but let us say he was deeply moved. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Mountfort FAR

Benjamin Mountfort has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Who are you? Bishonen | talk 18:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

So getting rid of those pesky bots might not have been the best idea? Tex (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was more making a rhetorical point, Tex. If I really wanted to know, there's always the history. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

I would not trouble yourself to find out if I were you, Mrs Bishonen. Probably ashamed of his actions, I shouldn't wonder. Just count to 10 and relax - listen to one of the soothing melodies played on my alpenhorn. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that he left a notification on 6 pages with his fancy little script, but did not sign any of them. And yet he's qualified enough to recommend that the article lose it's FA status because he thinks there aren't enough inline citations! Who is he, indeed? What's the saying about inmates and asylums? Tex (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your comment

I understand your concerns and I shall remove my comment. But, I feel that your concerns carry less weight as you do appear to be on good terms with Irpen. Friends are always quick to defend friends. I guess I was just still angry at Irpen for his behaviour on previous occasions. One can't be friends with everyone on Wikipedia :-) Thanks for taking the time to write all that out. I appreciate being told when I'm out of order. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(This is what I wrote on Irpen's user page) - Yeah... *through gritted teeth* thanks Keeper. - No. I shall stop being angry now. I guess I've always had a bad temper on here and it really has collided with some people. I've decided to stop giving into the addiction :-) - I don't think I'm a bad person. I know how to be nice and polite. I guess I just lose control when I see things that I believe are wrong. That happens with everyone. Irpen, in the past, I've found some of your comments to be enraging to the point of wanting to burn my whole flat down. But oh well :-) I am passed that as of now. I have nothing against you personally. You're a human being. I'm genetically programmed to love you in some sort of fashion. Maybe not physically just yet... We'll talk about that another time (if you're into that sort of thing... I'm game if you are?). Anyway, I'd just like to say I'm sorry for losing my temper with you. I promise I won't engage in any future discussions on Wikipedia that will lead to me swearing or losing my temper. This includes ignoring Kurt Maxwell Weber, any cabals, Daniel Brandt, and the poo (that's not a swear word) stain that is Wiki Review. I promise I won't make fun of, belittle, insult or upset anyone (intentionally) ever again on Wikipedia or Wikipedia Review or on the Internet in general. I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologise to anyone whom I have upset over the past 17 months and I will endeavour to patch things up with them again. Thank you to everyone whom has been nice to me :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a very nice post. Thank you. Though about being friends... well, you have a point there. On the other hand... I suppose that you meant your comments to Irpen on your friend Enigmaman's RFA to carry weight, huh..? I really do appreciate what you posted on Irpen's page, though. That was a beautiful response. :-) Bishonen | talk 21:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

Re: Warning

Thanks for stepping in with Elonka. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't warn people much, let alone block for personal attacks, but that was just too, too bad. Wait, I'd better go give her a timeframe. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

A block seems over the top, though it is what she does to others (without the out of providing diffs or other justification). Seems a bit too much just making a WP:POINT about the partiality of her behavior. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bishonen, this threat to block Elonka is completely inappropriate. You cannot be considered uninvolved by any stretch of the imagination, and such a block would not comply with policy. I sincerely hope you wouldn't actually follow through with such a ridiculous threat. - auburnpilot talk 22:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Stretch your imagination a little further in that case, AuburnPilot. It seems to be excessively narrow in compass. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

Your snide remarks aside, such a block would be completely unacceptable and no doubt overturned. I certainly can't stop you from making such a mistake, but there are plenty who would reverse it. - auburnpilot talk 22:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A block would be justifiably overturned, and any such sanctions against Elonka would be rendered moot and pointless by the wheel-warring that would ensue as a result. seicer | talk | contribs 22:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Er... I'm not actually an admin, you know. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

Bishonen such a block would not be based in policy and would be ill-advised. Chillum 22:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Chillum, always the man of the hour. I wouldn't forbid you my page, certainly, but could you please limit your comments on it to those you feel are absolutely necessary? Anything that includes the word "ill-advised" or any of its synonyms I think we can take as understood, you and I. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

You can rest assured I felt my comment necessary. While we have disagreed in the past I would hate to see you make a block that leads to you being reversed and likely admonished. I cannot bring myself to assume that these things are "understood" due to your actions. Chillum 22:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And you reckon that comment was necessary as well. I see. You know, I would have thought that might sort of show you what I mean. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

I've responded on User talk:Elonka, but as our exchange isn't exactly benefiting anyone, I'm happy to end it at that. Best wishes moving forward. - auburnpilot talk 23:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(Scared of Bishzilla, huh?) Bishonen | talk 23:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

If you were faced with a dinosaur apparently doing a Technicolor yawn, wouldn't you be? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. "Chillum" thinks that blocking someone for calling another warned for harassment and a liar is out of line? This is the person who thought that "incivility is the #1 problem at Wikipedia?" This is the person who has favored every "NPA" block that has ever been proposed? Ok, that's odd. As for Bishonen being uninvolved, it's a simple fact. She is entirely uninvolved in the RfC and has neither edited the same articles as Elonka nor had any quarrel with Elonka in, what, three years? By such a standard, no one is an uninvolved admin, because every admin has either expressed praise or condemnation of Elonka at some point on wiki, and who the heck knows how many are getting and sending private e-mails? Bishonen has a point of view, and -- get this -- it's an informed point of view (a deep concept, I know). I have a point of view, too, but in the case of Elonka it's far more impressionistic and not based on deep investigation. However, I have never had a quarrel with Elonka in any venue. Would I be "uninvolved?" You folks are comic in a very dark way. Geogre (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, way too many <koff> uninvolved admins are actually uninformed admins. Again CIVIL is in the eye of the beholder, what is unCIVIL to Chillum and Elonka is clearly not applicable to them. Shot info (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

George if you need to misrepresent me to make your point, then perhaps you should reconsider your point. My position on NPA is a little more complex than what you make it out to be. This is not the venue for this debate, but if you wish to have a civil discourse my talk page is open to you as always. Chillum 02:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have never interacted with Elonka, so have no interest or comment on her, but as a frequent visitor to this page, I know than I would trust Bishonen's judgement over that of many other admins any day any time. However, as an observer to many of Wikipedia's furores, one thing strikes me as rather odd. Why is it, Chillum, so often that whenever there is a whiff of trouble, there you are, two paces behind - pontificating? Especially, if it concerns the group of editors to which I belong. It seems to me you just love any excuse to turn up and opine and criticise any of us. What are you actually here for? When your behaviour is pointed out you scream and shout that it is unfair, yet you seem to pursue certain editors just waiting to pounce on any opportunity to poke your stick into any hornet's nest. It's my opinion that you just lurk around Wikipedia, agendaless, seeking problems, any problems because you simple enjoy the drama of trouble. You certainly appear to have no sound reasons or excuses for such behaviour; it's not pleasant - So disinterested am I in you, that I do not even know the subjects in which you edit, and where your peculier interests lie, so why not extend the same courtesy? In short, leave us alone and find something more constructive to do with your time, before others, less kindly than myself, begin to notice - what is amounting to obsessive behaviour. Giano (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Giano you ask me to avoid you then you pop up to something unrelated to you and criticize. Well I am responding because you asked me to, so please don't think I am stalking you. The answer is that I have WP:AN and WP:ANI and my watchlist, this lead to Elonka's user space being on my watchlist, and I have concern about the community. When I see an admin making a mistake I try to stop them. I notice that I am just one of many people who have criticized this warning, yet you seem to think I am out of place somehow. I am not really aware of what sort of connection you and Bishonen have, if you could enlighten me to its nature I could perhaps be more sensitive to you in the future when speaking to Bishonen. I really did not mean to offend you, you didn't even cross my mind in this instance. Chillum 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fuck off! Bishonen | talk 17:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC).

Deleting RFC/U

Odd? [12] [13][14] -- Jehochman ^Talk 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)