User talk:Bishonen

Wikimood [purge] [edit]

Please post at the foot of the page!

My saved bits, Second subpage

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11

Your input desired

Please take a look at Talk:Jonathan Wild. It's one thing for me to insult my article. It's another for someone else to do so. Geogre 21:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall the German guy having some interesting cultural history that I lacked, which he added in that German way. I can read the French version, and it's almost a literal translation. I'm honored by it, of course, but its being "more professional" bugged me. (I don't read German, so I can't tell how closely he stays to me, but, even if it's the way a pig would, I can read French nouns, at least.) Geogre 01:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I was too mean. Did you see Filiocht's sonnet? I wrote it, it seems. Geogre 19:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh but you did, Dada Geogre. I just clicked some links from your user page, copy and pasted, and selected the order for the 14 lines. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean to committ a poem, I promise! I hadn't the mens rea. Geogre 15:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

But now that you've done it, it doesn't feel so bad, does it? Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's not the problem. The first one is always free. Soon, you find yourself writing a poem just to feel normal again. Geogre 17:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, the fellow did it. The Norwegian Jonathan Wild is a FA in Norsk. Geogre 12:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool! Read the vote here. --Bishonen | talk 13:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so what were the no voters saying? (They sure aren't verbose about it, esp. compared to the .en version.) Geogre 15:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

See, the system is a bit different. They apparently vote about two "grades" simultaneously. Anbefalt means "Recommended articles", which are defined as "spesielt lesverdige, og kan være til inspirasjon for videre artikler": "Specially read-worthy and can inspire your own article-writing." The higher grade is Utmerked, which means Featured, "det ypperste Wikipedia har av artikler", our best. The two votes under Utmerked basically say "No, I think it should be Anbefalt, not Utmerked." Note that those are cast by the first two people on the Anbefalt vote, and that one of them is the translator. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh. Maybe we should have "commendable" articles as well as "featured" articles. I wonder if we could mollify a few of our menaces that way? Geogre 19:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Almost forgot: Thanks honey. :-) (I'm a reactionary foamer, too.) Geogre 19:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks For The Intervention

Thank you again for being there through all of this with potw. Please let me know if there's anything I can do you in the future. karmafist 05:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've got one: stick around! ;-) Bishonen | talk 22:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A Rare RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...

Bish:

Just wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for supporting me in my recent RFA. I see that you don't vote in many RFAs (or, if you do, you don't vote in many where the nominee returns later to offer his/her thanks for your participation), so I'm doubly flattered that you elected to vote in mine. I shall endeavor to live up to your expectations.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 22:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the thank you, Extreme. No, I don't vote that much, but you were so obviously suited, what could I do? Enjoy your new responsibilities: the mop, the bucket, the stun gun! Bishonen | talk 22:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A thank you from Ann

Hello, Bishonen. I'm just dropping you a note to thank you for your support for my RfA. What you said ("dives into the pool of conflict and emerges dry") was definitely the most poetic comment I got! I should have thanked you earlier, but I got a bit caught up with college work. Anyway, although we haven't had any direct contact, I have seen you around, and I've liked what I've seen(!), so I'm looking forward to working with you in the future. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 00:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Darn! I missed her on RFA! Geogre 13:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how you do it, Ann: you discuss with some of the most obstreperous editors, and edit some of the worst cesspits among articles and wiki pages, and come up smelling of roses. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The Buffalo Skull of Diligence

File:Mandan hunter with buffalo skull.JPG

You have been presented with the Buffalo Skull of Diligence for reverting vandalism on Mandan while it was on the Mainpage, December 9, 2005. Thank you for your watchfulness and diligence!

Thanks for your work reverting the vandals on Mandan while it was on the mainpage yesterday! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Restoration blurb-o-mat

Seems easy to me. Wrom:

Restoration literature is the literature written in English during the period commonly referred to as the English Restoration (1660–1689), corresponding with the last years of the direct Stuart reign in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. The following article is designed as an overview, and the reader is advised to consult one of the more specialized articles for further information (see references within the text). Please note that the dates for "Restoration literature" are a matter of convention, and they differ markedly from genre to genre. Thus, the "Restoration" in drama may last until 1700, while in poetry it may last only until 1666 and the annus mirabilis, and in prose it might end in 1688, with the increasing tensions over succession and the corresponding rise in journalism and periodicals. In general, the term "Restoration" is used to denote roughly homogeneous styles of literature that center on a celebration of or reaction to the restored court of Charles II.

Restoration literature includes extremes, for it encloses both Paradise Lost and the Earl of Rochester's Sodom, the high spirited sexual comedy of The Country Wife and the moral wisdom of Pilgrim's Progress. It saw Locke's Treatises on Government, the founding of the Royal Society, the experiments and the holy meditations of Robert Boyle, the hysterical attacks on theaters from Jeremy Collier, and the pioneering of literary criticism from John Dryden and John Dennis. It saw news become a commodity, the essay develop into a periodical artform, the emergence of the stock market, and the beginnings of textual criticism.

We just turn it into:

Restoration literature is the literature written in English during the period commonly referred to as the English Restoration (1660 - 1689), corresponding with the last years of the direct Stuart reign in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. In general, the term is used to denote roughly homogenous styles of literature that center on a celebration of or reaction to the restored court of Charles II. It is a literature that includes extremes, for it encloses both Paradise Lost and the Earl of Rochester's Sodom, the high-spirited sexual comedy of The Country Wife and the moral wisdom of Pilgrim's Progress. It saw Locke's Treatises on Government, the founding of the Royal Society, the experiments and holy meditations of Robert Boyle, the hysterical attacks on theaters from Jeremy Collier, and the pioneering of literary criticism from John Dryden and John Dennis. It saw news become a commodity, the essay develop into a periodical artform, the emergence of the stock market, and the beginnings of textual criticism.

I don't know if that's not long enough, but it seems like an easy blurb. If it's not long enough, one can add in a sentence for each of the major divisions that will follow (in prose... in poetry... in theater...), but the lead attempts to have that already. Geogre 18:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it's long enough. Excellent, what am I saying, I mean, it will be excellent once I perform "major surgery" on it. ;-) Like this: "It saw news become a commodity, the essay develop into a periodical artform, the beginnings of textual criticism, and the emergence of the stock market. (Just to end somewhat climactically, on something the reader has heard of yet is not expecting here.) --Bishonen | talk 19:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The lead at this point is set up that way because of all the hemming and hawing over when it ends. Everyone knows when it begins, but I thought it was fair warning to set up in the lead that it wasn't going to end neatly. If it ends in '89, for example, then everyone writing under Bill & Mary is lost to literary history, as they're not 18th century until 1700 (1701, if we want to be precise). The cuts off a lot of the most interesting poetry and almost all of the interesting prose. Heck, it leaves your year of drama (1695) out in the cold. Geogre 20:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it's done now. It's quite blurbable. Geogre 16:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

she LIVES!!!

Take a look at User:Camillus_McElhinney#Correspondence, and prepare to be aghast, or something. FreplySpang (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonjour Madame Bishonen

Sorry not to have been in touch lately, but I've been so busy with my foreign commitments and fans! I've just sent you an email which you may enjoy dealing with! There is something very strange going on with the server today. I left this message first inexplicably on Bunch of Grapes talk page, which is not even on my watch list, having first hit your name on my list, now I see you even have the same image as him just above - very odd "these things cannot be explained" Au'revoir Giano | talk 12:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) PS: Can you not archive here on the mountainside it take ages to reach the bottom of this page! Giano | talk

Archive, archive, archive, you sing the same old song. I hate archiving my cool page, and nobody else ever complains (because I don't in fact ever let it get very long). Can't you get the peasantry to hand-crank it or something, like a mangle? Your ending up on the wrong page must have been from the Curse of the Buffalo. You have mail, monsieur! Bishonen | talk 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what other people do or do not complain about - I find it very trying to have to wait to get down here - soon I shall stop - Oh yes I will and then you will be sorry, I'm souht after elsewhere I don't have to come here you know. Now I've forgotten what I came for -Oh yes you have an email - it'll soon be quicker to catch a aeroplane and deliver a message personally! Giano | talk 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Situation Normal, All Forked Up

That was hilarious: "No one is more NPOV than I am! No one thinks I'm POV. .... Say, Tony, can you block Dunharris and two other people? They say I'm POV. They're so POV!" And, if that weren't enough, three references to Jimbo sez! Wow. Thaet was gode ful smoak. Geogre 00:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WebComArbComArfArfArf

If you click on This link, you will be taken to the /workshop page. However, you won't see all the arguments in glory. To do that, you'd have to go back to look at a version before Tony began withdrawing stuff, which means back to probably December 8th. Rather than trying to follow the complicated evolution of the withdrawing, refactoring, and restating, you'd be better off just reading the last clean copy before the massive refactoring. There isn't even much point in reading what it says now. Geogre 02:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

He's everywhere — how do we know where to stop? El_C 11:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The best idea is not to start. I am virtually alone among the "Other Parties" in believing that there is so little ambiguity, so little evidence, so little cause, that this thing is going to be a very easy close for the AC and that the fewer words now, the better -- just let them go ahead and say, "There's nothing here" or, better IMO, "Oops." As I said, I'm alone in thinking that, and some people are very ticked at comments made in the course of the prosecution. Geogre 13:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I meant on the revision history; I don't really know what's going and yet to even gglance at it. I remember there was something on the mailing list and afdkeeping an afd, but that's it. Then again, you seem to be saying not to even start ggthat, which I find very persuasive. El_C 13:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you're not alone. I think there's no case to answer, and that the ArbCom should never have taken it on. Sadly, I fear that as they did take it on, they may feel forced to pretend that they were right to do so. I'm also very ticked. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys, help me. I'm in the middle of it now. Geogre keeps telling me it's a lovely little read, just what I need to pick me up against certain RL reversals, and his pride and joy, which, well, I simply must read. *Voice fading* ok, i'm reading it, it's great, Geogre, I like it very much... a model debate, wonderful rhetoric... love the people being ticked part ... Bishonen | talk 13:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Which I find very persuasive! El_C 13:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, this is the last version where most of the debate was present. After that, the really radical cutting started, and particularly Tony's insults began disappearing. Geogre 13:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Geogre is certainly not alone in thinking the case has no merit. Some of us are just less optimistic than he is about the possible outcome. Are "the fewer words now, the better" or are the better words, now the fewer? I honestly don't know which. Paul August ☎ 16:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot even lead the blind, so I wouldn't presume to lead a parade. I can't even lead the cops on a merry chase, nor a horse to water or horticulture. Geogre 16:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Geogre, no matter how much you protest, you do lead, by example and the force majeure of your arguments. Paul August ☎ 18:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dang it! Now I've got to get a creme to stop all this blushing (or blushing). Geogre 22:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I read this There isn't much to say after Filiocht's demonstration; should I be flattered or insulted? Help me out here, people. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I meant that you kicked Tony's logic's rear fully out of the game, so doing more would be kicking a thing when down. Geogre 13:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand. Sorry for being dense. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Drake Hotel

Look your chocolate shop has been edited out! but at least the distinguished, important and may I say beautiful and intelligent patrons still remain! Giano | talk 14:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Swiss chocolate shop gone? That certainly takes away some of the lustre. But, as you say, those patrons are the main thing. Bishonen | talk 17:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Joyeux Noël des fraudeurs du fisc

I can't believe it, I really cant' I spent half an hour this afternoon lovingly translating ( I don't do translations) this "Paggina principali" [1] from the Sicilian Wikipedia (not many people know about this one!) I went to proudly present my wonderful new page (for the delight of you all) and found this Sicilian cart, which has apparently been here since 1st October 2005. However, I do feel strongly we should all be supporting the Sicilian Wikipedia. sadly lack of time, and the minor fact I do not speak it well, means that Geogre, Filiocht,ALoan and Paul August will be studying it over Christmas in order that our best literary contributions can be there in the new year. Well done to Geogre Filiocht and Aloan not many people would sacrifice their Christmas in such a way. I wish, I too could study this interesting subject, but unfortunately I'm entertaining Jimbo, Raul and that nice little Mrs. Bishonen at my "Palazzo Splendido, Caymen Islands" over the joyous festival. Bless you all Giano | talk 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Obsoletu"? What a nerve! I'm sure that's not true. Anyway, as a small tribute to Sicily's culture and wiki, I've tentatively started a Sicilian Christmas article in my userspace, to complement the December 24 Featured article on the Main Page. Please help this humble stub to grow, everybody. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC).

Is it just me, or is today's Main page featured article more than usually semi-literate? Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll only say that I groaned audibly when I saw it. (Why aren't there such idee fixes on male singers and actors, one may wonder.) Geogre 13:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's appalling but we have looked at worse, in fact she's looks very nice indeed to me. The problem is there aint much there (in the text I mean). As an FA it seems to have been passed on 7th September 2005, and the record shows it was unopposed, which means none of us bothered to even look at it! Perhaps we should all try to look beyond the few (in my case very few) pages which really interest us on FA, and put pay once and for all to all this drivel which is being featured. It seems the good pages (in my opinion) get honed to bland perfection on FA, while the dross seeps through uncontested. Right word of wisdom over. Giano | talk 23:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

She's purty. Absolutely no doubt about that. I saw The Village, and I thought she was real purty. Heck, most of the targets of ... interest ... are extremely attractive, and most have a very intriguing look rather than just some grotesque adolescent exaggeration (except for Gwen Stefani: I have no idea at all why people are fixated on her), but I have yet to understand why one researches a object of desire. Not, of course, that there is anything wrong with it. I just don't understand it. I am old and on medication, I guess. Geogre 11:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Do you like Madona I think she's terribly nice, really attractive. I think she's probably a very nice person too. I once drew up alongside her at some traffic lights in London, our eyes actually met, I could tell there was an instant frisson, but of course she has excellent self control and allowed her driver to pull away - but I could see the longing in her eyes even through the tinted glass. I wrote to explain my feelings for her, but I think I must have forgotten to include my address and phone number as she was unable to reply. She really is the most remarkable woman, I think she should be on the front page every day. Giano | talk 12:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Provided all her commas are in the right places. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Giano, I'm so happy to see this frankness, you used to be quite shy about liking gay icons. Be proud, as I'm proud of you! And, Geogre, you may be old etc., but you're very well-informed; is it beneath you to do a little fact-checking on our modest Christmas effort? (And the same to you, ALoan, Paul, all visitors!) Bishonen | talk 12:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. Giano, voodoo has been performed as requested. Bish

I now travel the planet without a soul Giano | talk 21:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Madonna and child are both wonderful, I'm sure. As an avid gazer upon her early "bootleg" nudes (with European underarm hair!) in Penthouse, I must say that I've always been impressed by her physical beauty. That is as far as it goes. I cannot recall anything she has ever caterwauled that I have enjoyed, unless it was a cover song, and those I have always preferred in their original, un-cuted state. Her public antics, her music, and her image leave me cold. I knew a dozen like her in the punkrock days, and they all were fine to look at, but never to speak to or endure the company of. At this point, I prefer the art of her husband and the looks of herself. There have been no beauties of indescribable longing since Audrey Hepburn, that Dutch girl, Charlotte Rampling, and Catherine Deneuve. And, for Bishonen, you know how humorless I am! Geogre 13:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Still harping on that? :-( Very well. If you should change your mind, you know where to find the masterpiece of subtle wit. masterpiece<sarcasm> of subtle <sarcasm> wit <sarcasm>Bishonen | talk 14:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am! I was very impressed by the nudes of Madonna with unshaven armpits, and I'll continue to harp on it until ... well... it was impressive. Geogre 14:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not like our efforts are all that funny! Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, well, I was kind of trying to make the same point. I've gone back and made it a little clearer above. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever qualities they have, they could only be worsened by my additions. Bishonen and I are best of friends, until we work on the same article. Geogre 14:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• She's not a gay icon, and I particuarly liked her in the Evita film, did you know they had to rescore the whole music to suit her particularly beautiful and unusual voice. Giano | talk 15:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

AOL Blocks

Hi Bishonen. You working tonight? Merovingian has blocked me from editing -- we seem to be starting into a new wave of blocks based on that rotating proxy. New administrators seem to go through a phase of trying to punish all AOL users. I left him the note below. Please release me if you can. Thanks. WBardwin 06:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that you have blocked an AOL proxy address -- which randomly rotates among users. AOL users cannot control which number they are assigned, and blocking the number for any length of time is ineffective in fighting vandalism. Please see my user page User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection for a history of adminstrative discussion and action regarding these blocks. They seem to hit me often. Please release your block. Information below. Thank you. WBardwin 06:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Your IP address is 207.200.116.202. Please include this address, along with your username, in any queries you make. Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Merovingian. The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Kkkboi". The reason given for Kkkboi's block is: "vandal/troll".

The dingbat blocked the proxy number for 24 hours. Doesn't wikipedia give new admins any training at all? I'd appreciate if you would intervene for me. Thanks. WBardwin 07:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Sorry to say this happens regardless of the experience of the admin, they've no way of telling whether a name account is AOL. You see the IP address, but they don't. Some day it'll be me or JRM that blocks you, probably. :-( Bishonen | talk 07:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help -- sorry to sound irritated but I feel like a target is on my back these days. Stress high -- and, oddly, I find Wiki a great stress reliever, so what time I have here is more precious to me. Remind me not to get 'Knowledge Seeker' on my bad side -- I didn't appeal to him/her so he/she must have read my notes to "friendly" administrators, like you, and decided to leave me a little note. Best wishes. WBardwin 08:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And at least two "respected administrators" use AOL in one way or another. One uses AOL per se. The other uses Netscape ISP. Netscape ISP is a wholly owned, etc. of AOL. (Hey! What can I say? I'm poor! Netscape only costs $10/month for unlimited hours.) Geogre 11:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Something's missing...

File:Mallard-drake-grooming.jpg

Ah, there, completeness. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And there we go! Bishonen | talk 10:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My big drake

So, there's my drake, all shrunken -- his masculinity threatened by yet another fearful viewer. Have you seen TFD and the debate over the "Maintained" template? Pretty active debate, if you're interested. (What is it with these templates? I want to read articles, not banners!) Geogre 12:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I shrunk your drake because of the space he took up. By no means blame Redwolf24, who had posted him LIKE THIS:

File:Mallard-drake-grooming.jpg

File:Large white shark.jpg

Hello little Ducky come to daddy! Right I'm off, will be back in touch when I get there. Behave yourselves Giano

Another big Drake.

File:Wales flag large.png

An even bigger drake! El_C

(signed) --Bishonen | talk 13:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

He's happier now. The chicks will like him and be attracted to his nest. Geogre 16:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, indeed they will. This is him from a distance. See? He's actually bigger than the swan in Lohengrin, or the flying eagle that Jupiter appeared on in the machine house at Dorset Garden. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand. All that masculinity made you nervous. They call it Leda Syndrome: the fear of large, male water fowl. Geogre 20:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That's it. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sir Francis seems to be well endowed with all the right equipment, to defend that poor "little ducky". Paul August ☎ 14:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Noooo! He sank the Armada using fireships! Think of the number of ducks harmed in that way -- all so he could tell the Spanish ladies that he was hot. Geogre 16:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

RFA

Thank you for supporting my recent bid for adminship, which passed 64-2. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:25, Dec. 17, 2005

VARNING!

• Var försiktig så att ingen kroppsdel eller något husdjur kommer i kläm i mellanrummet vid stativet eller skärmens underdel.
• Se upp så att du inte klämmer fingrarna mellan stället och bildskärmen när du justerar bildskärmens vinkel.
  • Heh-heh-heh: they said "vinkel!" Geogre 14:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What did he just call us? El_C 14:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That one's for you both, Geogre and El; be careful no body part OR PET (husdjur) gets squashed when Geogre assembles his new computer! Oh, my goodness, what's THAT body part doing in there? I said careful! Bishonen | talk 15:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
        • A necromancer's computer? Remember when Sauron was sorta saucy & ringless, the manifestation of his spirit's potency wasn't quite at Dark Lord — rather, a necromancer! Although what or whom he was necromancing remains an open question. El_C 15:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Gosh, I wonder where I can put down this monitor? Fifi! Sit." At this point, I'm viewing my words on that monitor, and none of my body parts are impinged in any way, and all the pages display differently on account of all this new real estate on the display. Geogre 19:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely hilarious: all and sundry must see the "strongly critical editorial" on Wikipedia at The Onion. Now this is the sort of editorial I've been expecting. Geogre 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We can all be thankful that the points of criticism were amply addressed in the intervening year, except, disturbingly, Yankovic's groundbreaking TV work on The Weird Al Show is now summed up in just one paragraph of puff, not even the three present when the critique was crafted. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

My Re-RFA

Thank you for understanding the situation. SWD316 16:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

De nada. People are always getting terrifically upset about their own RFA's, over slights that are practically invisible to anybody else, whereas you were subjected to a really bad attack. I hope you pass this time, even though the figures aren't looking so hot at the moment. Bishonen | talk 16:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Kim Bruning

My dear Bishonen: No, I did notice he was blocked; you see, he made the original request for us to mediate down at Conspiracy theory and it doesn't much matter when he replies, it is hardly an urgent matter since I expect the dispute will take a good long time to settle down. All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear request

Hello Bishonen. I know that niceness is not my strong side, so I resort to you. Someone just re-added a picture he himself took to article Kalmar (at the bottom). Could you kindly tell him that one image of that kind is enough? / Fred-Chess 22:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So you thought the well-known Bishonen tactlessness might do it? Well, I agree with you about one castle pic being enough for Kalmar, especially since there are more at Kalmar Castle. I've dropped Brookie a note. Bishonen | talk 01:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooh you tactful lot! I've swapped the picture for one of the bridge - ok? No I'm not from Kalmar - but the UK! Merry Xmas! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 13:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Brookie, looking good! I always liked that bridge. (Now do the caption! ;P) Bishonen | talk 14:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

A cracking bridge - excellent on a cruise ship - altered the caption! Merry Xmas - this is where i Live - Grendon -we've got no bridge - or even water! We're about as far from the sea in the UK as you can get! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 14:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

After a request from Mr Chess - I've uploaded the bridge pic to Commons as well. Have a beer for me! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 14:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Much obliged [swigs], Merry Christmas to you too. Ah, Grendon is gorgeous: the hatchment, the advowson, the squint, the Domesday Book, and the niece of William the Conqueror! Just so! The article does seem rather centered on the church (which I'm sure is a lovely church), to the exclusion of the village itself. Are you sure there isn't a bridge across the brook..? Bishonen | talk 15:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Cultures of the World

Would you consider contributing? Or how about voting for it as collaboration of the week for this new but important article.--Culturesoftheworld 19:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Wikipedia experience more enjoyable.

The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with User:Deeceevoice and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.

I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.

Thank you. Rob Church ^Talk 20:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

SWD316 RFA

I want you to see the comment under the "comments" section I left at My RFA. It partially involves you. SWD316 22:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I command you! :) El_C 05:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

As you already know:

Thank you!

I thank you for your support on my recent RFA. Although I did not make admin, I'm very happy you decided to support me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 05:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

60 minutes of research

<sigh> Ok, I've now spent an hour or so in the lieberry attempting to find some facts. Miraculously, these Baptists actually had a book specifically about 60 Minutes, although one that "exposes" it for liberalism. I found the facts in it and ignored the rest. Also, it turns out that Ambi should know something of it, as there is an Australian spin-off on Channel 9, or at least there was in 1984, when the book I used was written. Am I afraid of old information? Yeah. Will I be careful? Yeah. Do I have some lipstick to put on that pig? I suppose. Geogre 16:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael Snow also worked on it. I'm done, now. It's not perfect, not FA, but not horrendous anymore. I caught some POV that Michael had missed, and I did some sentence wrenching. 'S'Ok. Geogre 18:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Geogre, it's much better than OK. You and your lipstick are awesome. Bishonen | talk 23:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Still needs one big edit. I said I'd do it last night, but then that went the way of all plans. I simply cannot get adequate sleep. Geogre 12:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A move

We could use some help in moving reconstructed pronunciation of ancient Greek back to its original title Ancient Greek phonology. It was moved by Thrax on his own accord after minor revert war and some pointless edits of the redirect link trumped any plans of simple salvage.

Peter ^Isotalo 04:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A beacon of enlightened reason in the murky wikidarkness... Thanks!

Peter ^Isotalo 17:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh. I read that as a bacon of reason. Thanks, you're too kind! Bishonen | talk 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bishonen, thanks for your comments on the outrageous move of Ancient Greek phonology by User:Thrax. Well, now, clearly acting both against consensus (which he has been doing consistently for a long time) and your clear characterization of the previous move as a "stunt", he's done it again. Besides restoring the article to its original title, I suppose we need to open some sort of action against him. What a pain. Any advice you have would be appreciated. --Macrakis 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Macrakis. I have no opinion on the article title, but I can see that Thrax is flouting several principles, and I'm not about to countenance a "You follow the rules, you lose (sucker!)" situation here. The move was being reverted by User:Ανδρέας just as I went look, and I've warned Thrax. Hang on, though; I have a feeling I'd better go back and make the warning more all-encompassing. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thrax now added a subtitle The reconstructed pronunciation of Ancient greek. Andreas 20:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thrax has actually moved the article three times, the third after Andreas had moved it back (Andreas moved it back again). Take a look at: First change Second change. This is no way to write an encyclopedia.... --Macrakis 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thrax started a POV fork named The historical pronunciation of ancient Greek Andreas 20:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...sigh. I'm going to assume good faith there, and leave it to the editors to sort out. Please see my note on both the talkpages for some alternative ways of handling a fork situation. If the user should yet again edit war against consensus, as I have now explicitly warned him not to do, I will certainly consider it disruptive (=I'll block him). But I suppose it doesn't take a chrystal ball to see all the bother (for the consensual editors) of an RFC and perhaps RFAR looming ahead. :-( Bishonen | talk 23:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Greek phonology has been on the RFC list as Ancient Greek pronunciation since Nov. 8 [2] and was removed on Dec. 20. Andreas 00:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter M.

In case you didn't see, I made an attempt to locate all of his actual good edits. I listed them on AN/I. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Good grief, you've done some serious research there! Those seem constructive ok (I clicked on a sample), though some of them are pretty minor. But now put into the other scale all the time and energy and good will taken away from other editors by the trolling edits, and consider what a lot of constructive edits they could have used that wasted time for, and how much happier they would have been doing that kind of work. The "happiness" issue is a big deal IMO: I seriously believe that interaction with... somebody playing these kinds of mindgames comes high on the list of "things that make good editors leave Wikipedia in disgust". Thanks for your work and your message! Bishonen | talk 23:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just think it is important to look at problems from all sides. I just don't want people condemned before all the evidence is presented. But, yes, I'd agree with you that the happiness issue is an important one. But vandals and trolls have been turned around in the past, so I think efforts should be made to try and change their behavior before drastic steps are taken. Don't get me wrong, RfCs and RfArs are necessary in some cases, but we don't unnecessarily need to start RfCs or RfArs before other options are looked at. But in this specific case, PM is probably doing more harm than good, IMO, and you were right when you said that one may need to be filed, sooner rather than later. It's good to see my work appreciated though. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei

Hi Bishonen, after commenting on the frivolous claim on the Administrator's noticeboard by User:Huaiwei, you may be interested in reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Huaiwei. I thank you for your time. enochlau (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

With the RFAR injunctions, the situation is so involved that I hardly know what to say there. I do understand your frustration, but I suspect that User:Monicasdude has it right that the best thing would be to withdraw the RFC and focus instead on whether Huaiwei has violated his probation. (If you believe that he has, I think WP:RFAR under the heading "Requests for clarification" would probably be a good place to post.) Meanwhile, if you do want to go on with the RFC, I've posted a note on its talkpage for you, about evidence and diffs. Good luck! Bishonen | talk 19:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually didn't know there was a section on RFAR on clarifications. I originally brought the matter to the Admin noticeboard but someone said move it to RFC. But I'll discuss with User:Novacatz and see if RFAR is the most appropriate channel. enochlau (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Enochlau, perhaps I should revise my suggestion, now that I've actually found the RFAR in question (it's here). As you can see, Huaiwei's one-year probation means that "any administrator ... may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." If you find that H's editing has disrupted Chinese New Years greetings, I suggest you don't bother with WP:RFAR, but post on WP:ANI asking other admins to take a look, and ban H from the article if they see cause. Naturally, "any admin" doesn't mean you, who're an involved party, and possibly not me either, since H has already managed to attack me on WP:ANI, with an accusation of "bullying" him to further some nefarious geographical conspiracy (a little amusing, that, since I'm in Northern Europe). I don't really agree that criticizing him and being attacked for it disqualifies me, especially since H seems so ready to spray attacks in all directions, but some people are very purist about this. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought, I'd raise it with admins at ANI and let them deal with it, until I got this:

This looks like a user RFC to me. It even follows the same format. This might be an attempt to smear someone without having to follow the certification requirements at WP:RFC. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (now moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Huaiwei/Archive1)

So, the opinion of that administrator was that I was trying to smear Huaiwei via a backdoor by posting this onto ANI. I think he had a valid concern, because due to the posts of other users, my original request that Huaiwei and friends be banned from those pages had ballooned due to continued comments from the others, so it looked like a RfC. Should I dare take it back to ANI? enochlau (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yes! This is what the RFAR tells you to do, so just do it. I think Ryan may have failed to grasp the situation, and the key to that would be his comment "Really, you put just way too much information here, and it's not very well organized. I can hardly tell what is even going on." You need to post very briefly, emphasizing 1) the RFAR probation, and 2) your request for an uninvolved admin to take a look at the pages and form their own opinion about whether a ban would be appropriate. Don't enumerate the disruptions that you see, don't be drawn into arguing with Huaiwei! If he replies (as I expect he will, though he'd be wiser not to) and starts arguing about all sorts of details, just tell him that you have no more to say, as you want to leave uninvolved admins a clear field to make up their own minds, and so should he. Oh, and put a very clear heading, like "Request for uninvolved admin to review possible probation violation" or something.

Your biggest problem is probably that it's such an ungrateful task for an uninvolved admin to take on: they'd have to plow through a lot of bickering on the talk pages, no doubt come in for abuse if they do ban, and finally perform the bureaucratic nightmare that the ArbCom has decreed: posting the ban, in various specified ways, on no less than four different pages. A lot of hoops to jump through. I suppose it might help if you tried to formulate it so as to encourage people to take on one of the pages and review that? Bishonen | talk 00:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The Relapse

I appear to be having a significant relapse. I'm of two minds about the adspam. On the one hand, I think it's fine. On the other hand, there are so many unsigning visitors to my talk page these days, particularly in regard to the evil that policy does, that I'm not sure. Since it's my talk page, I guess that means go ahead. Sure is big and bright, though. ("Henry, with his plights and gripes as bad as Achilles" -- John Berryman, Dreamsong #14.) Geogre 02:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It took me a long time to figure out what it was all about, but hey, thank you !! ;=) The vote should be over on January 9th. Joyeux Noël ! Manchot sanguinaire 17:40, 24 December 2005

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Bishonen! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Season's greetings, Bish, and all the best for the new year. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Bestest year and Merry holidays from moi, Bish! El_C 04:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Purr! Bishonen | talk 19:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

May I add my voice to the throng … and may I also thank you for cleaning up my talk page. —Theo (Talk) 07:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I had to, it was a dreadful mess. Merry Christmas, Theo. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit late, but Happy Holidays! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Prodego/wikistress

No problem, I see you figured it out. ;-) That's why you can revert!(And so you can stop vandals)

Prodego ^talk 15:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use

Bishonen, maybe you'd like to enlighten the people at Hillbilly and especially User:Abelson about what Fair use means, and that an image from the Simpsons is not fair use on an article about Hilbillies. / Fred-Chess 17:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you don't have to respond. I took it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use / Fred-Chess 17:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

A very rude edit summary from Abelson: I wish people wouldn't bring the worst of sv.Wiki manners with them to en. I've commented on Talk:Hillbilly. Bishonen | talk 19:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Daegling in Bigfoot

Daegling himself is not a reputable source.

I find this amusing that a competent researcehr who is "into" this topic from direct field work, cannot quote his own research whereas old farts who never left the house are considered a source.

As for published work, most editors in the outside world of journals will not touch this topic.

Disgusted with Wiki. Losers editing winners.

beckjordBeckjord 19:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. You can use yourself yourself as a source, provided you cite yourself from some reputable publication (be it website, journal, or book). What you cannot do is present your own field work in your own voice in the article. Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. If the outside world of journals will not touch a topic, neither will we. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Query

You then say it is ok to quote a website re something I did?

BTW, how do you ___ever__ expect newbies to understand all this stuff? No wonder you have angry trolls and vandals. They are Mad at Wiki. All these rules and stuff, hard to understand, and hard to learn even where to look.

Also, Wiki (we) really __does__ touch this topic. See Bigfoot.

beckjordBeckjord 19:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I say it's OK to cite a well-reputed website, published by someone accountable and trustworthy. Say a university. By no means is it all right to cite somebody's blog, or a site put up by an anonymous or otherwise unknown individual, or one widely regarded as marginal. I do agree with you that the place is confusing and frustrating for newbies, but as you see, they do learn what they need eventually (most of us were new pretty recently.) Though as for learning ALL this stuff, you'll probably never find an editor who has! People tend to specialize in the wikicorners they're interested in. Naturally, it's easier if you start with something less challenging than editing a controversial page, but I do understand that your great interest is in editing the type of pages that you do, so I suppose that can't be helped. There is another factor: how much you're prepared to listen to other people, and try to learn. If you suspect those other people of not having good intentions in the advice they give, then that's an added difficulty, of course. Still, seriously, clicking on what you rather dismissively call "some link to read" and studying it is a very good wiki study technique. And just generally listening is, too. If you don't mind my reminding you, for instance, did you notice my formatting advice to you on Talk:Bigfoot? About using double equals signs, ==, for headings on Talkpages? See, the single signs that you're using make your headings bigger than everybody else's, and also mess up the headings hierarchy on the page. Take a look at how they're affecting my Table of Contents above, for instance. Getting that kind of thing right is admittedly pretty trivial, but it helps make a good impression on readers. WP:CIVIL is vastly more important, though! Good luck with your wikiefforts. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

More Thrax

Thrax is at it again at Talk:Ancient Greek phonology. Take a look. From his behavior, it seems as though his primary goal is to attract attention, even if that means being blocked. --Macrakis 21:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Vregamoto (translates roughly as 'fuck it!', not an acceptable user name) has two edits to his account:

1. A reply to your block: "Blocking people in order to gain advantage in a content war is against the rules." 2005-12-27 01:26:30 [3]
2. A comment during an earlier block block record: 2005-11-29 23:07:47[4]

If this isn't a sock-puppet.... --Macrakis 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I was just wondering what the name meant (after seeing your comment on the user's talkpage). I'm not sure how to do a username block, but I'll have a shot at it. Is it Greek? Bishonen | talk 02:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. --Macrakis 02:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been confirmed through a Checkuser IP check run by User:Kelly Martin that Vregamoto and Thrax are the same editor. That's the worst behavior from Thrax I've seen so far. :-( I think I'll go change the messages on Vregamoto's pages in the light of this new information. I will also extend Thrax's block. Bishonen | talk 15:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

From my perspective, the sockpuppet avoidance of the block is a very serious technical violation, but not the worst behavior overall. Thrax has been disruptive for months now, but mostly in ways that are not unambiguously forbidden: extremely repetitive Talk discussion, edits against consensus, etc. As the consensus has become stronger, he has taken more and more extreme measures. I don't know if he's just so ideologically driven that he think's he has the 'duty' to do this (from his POV) or if he is just playing a game on WP. But the result is the same -- he wastes huge amounts of time and energy of the cooperative editors, and discourages knowledgeable contributors. --Macrakis 16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for three weeks. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet? User:AskMelegi Andreas 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Thrax' IP is now blocked, the socks aren't coming in from that any more, the way they did at first, but via "furious proxy-surfing", according to Kelly. You figure it: theoretically, CheckUser can no longer furnish absolute proof that these guys all live in Thrax's computer. But User:AskMelegi is either the sock of a user who has shown no conscience about creating them, or else a brand new user suddenly appearing and continuing the discussion where Thrax left off. Via an open proxy. That choice is more than enough for me to put the account on the list, and block it. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet? User:JacobGrimm Andreas 14:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Another sockpuppet? User:HansChristianAnderson Andreas 17:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Sorry I was slow on the uptake there. You guys are welcome to add all future obvious Thrax footwear to the list on Talk:Ancient Greek phonology yourselves if you like, it's hardly worth bothering Kelly for any more CheckUser checks, and you can recognize them as well as I can or better. Though please do keep posting them here for me, too, so I know to block them. At the bottom of this page is better, actually, I'm less likely to miss a message there. Bishonen | talk 02:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy Hanukkah

File:PugPetronije.jpg

A Hanukkah pug

Bishonen,

You should know the only reason this page is on my watchlist is because it's usually fairly amusing. But lately, sheesh, I dunno — if it's not one content dispute it's another. And then — shudder — the cryptozoologists show up. (Who next, the embezzlers, claiming that only those who have committed the crime have the proper expertise to edit the embezzlement page?) Well that's the final straw. I can hold my tongue no longer. Here: everybody loves pugs. Let the amusement commence. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Pug is welcome, as long as he doesn't scare off Giano's goats, Geogre's drakes, or El C's petting zoo. --Bishonen | talk 23:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

File:Dog.gif

Grrrrrrr!

That dog looks like he just ate a duck! Noooo! Now this dog, on the other hand, wouldn't harm a feather, wouldn't muss a fly. Give her rawhide, and she'll contentedly stare at you all day long. Geogre 01:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I will stare at you until you give me a bone.

I don't even think a duck would fit within a pug's maw, how dare you! Your dog, on the other hand, possesses what could only be described as a satanic gleam in its infernal eyes. Either that, or it wants some real meat, enough with the bones and rawhide already. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so I have to feed her a fresh newbie every two weeks, but that's a small sacrifice, and it's a valuable service, for it cleans up delightfully. A rawhide bone to keep the incisors sharp, newbie bones for nutrition. (This is why I never bite a newbie. As August Strindberg said, "Dog owners are cowardly people who haven't got the courage to bite people themselves." (And I wonder now how bad the August Strindberg article is. I hope it's better than, say, Allen Tate.).) Geogre 12:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The nearest thing to a bishpet: this cute computer. Note the view of my 'hood Söder on the screen.

Ok, I've read August Strindberg now, and all I can say is, "Macheath, attack!" It's not as bad as the Allen Tate article, but it's not altogether good, either. It has wiki-itis (late hands qualifying without rephrasing) and lacks a discernible thesis. (Yes, the primary author will no doubt see this and be offended, and for that I'm sorry in advance.) (Actually, I'm just sorry.) Geogre 15:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hellooo, Macheath, who's a good girl? What pic can I post, Geogre? Oh, hey, this pretty little sunflower mac is the nearest thing I've got to a pet. Note the baby loudspeaker on its own leash. Checking out August Strindberg... oh dear... "Sunflower, attack!" There are some extremely dubious assertions, that could certainly do with citing. WHO says Strindberg criticized his contemporary gender roles as unjust? Hard-ly. And he was an anarchist? I don't think so. Guess what? The Swedish version, which was much inferior to this one a year ago, is now much better. It's a Featured article, and looks, from a speedread, to deserve it. Hmm. Maybe I should expand and improve... oh, yeah, Swedish 19th c literature, that's got to be the one thing that would bore an anglophone readership more than Restoration drama. Brilliant. --Bishonen | talk 21:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please do something about Strindberg! This is one of those Swedish topics which should be featured. I'll even help you. The Strindberg article is really among the most incoherent pieces of half-a-sentence-every-second-week-from-any-random-bypasser wiki-editing I have seen on Wikipedia ("College" is possibly worse – that one is a result of the "write about what you know [and don't bother to do any research to put what you know – or think you know – in context]" principle, which makes all academia-related articles around here look like crap). Tupsharru 05:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's Wiki-itis, alright. Every person just adds a bit she's heard in class, maybe, or what seems to be true based on stuff in the article (e.g. the Anarchist claim; in The Red Room, there are Anarchists-to-be, so someone thinks, "Well, not really a Socialist, so that means an Anarchist" and adds that). There is no "let's read a biography" spirit, because that would need a single, hard core editor, and the article instead has a hundred dilletente editors. These dilletente editors can do wonders, but when there never has been a major writer, the result is Wiki-itis. Geogre 12:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I wonder how anyone can tell that's a statue of him. It doesn't look much like him, at least in terms of physique, and one has to wonder if he posed for it, pee-pee hanging out and all. Geogre 14:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's Strindberg during his little known bodybuilding and gay porn model phase, between the Nietzschean and alchemist periods. Tupsharru 15:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah... for some reason that reminds me, Tups, didn't you have any material to add on the Scandinavian influence here? As I'm sure you're aware, Strindberg popped the famous would-you-like-to-have-a-baby-with-me-Miss-Bosse question to Harriet Bosse during a Sicilian Christmas sauna session. As far as the Strindberg article, I think I may be a little too busy just now working up Erik Beckjord to Featured status (see below) to bother with minor 19th-c writers from some European backwater, but I suppose I could return to it later. Suggested division of labor to begin with: how about you start inputting the best of the Swedish article, Tups, while I start reading Olof Lagercrantz's book? Bishonen | talk 15:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I notice that there is no mention of the Nordic yule goats brought by the Norman King Roger I to Sicily. Anyway, I'm also reading Lagercrantz, but I think Martin Lamm's biography is still considered authoritative. The paperback edition of Lagercrantz I have lacks footnotes or references. I suppose the Nordisk familjebok article can first be mined for a biographical outline. Tupsharru 13:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord

When I say nobody ever gives answers, etc, it means few people tell you how things work, instead of just sending some link to read.

FYI, I am getting several messages that other people find DreamGuy to be a **** as I do.I see no reason to be civil to someone who will not discuss issues, and who acts with great arrogance.

BTW, I like your images. I assume you are Japanese?

beckjordBeckjord 18:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. No, I'm not Japanese, and actually not a pretty youth either. What you say about refusing to be civil to somebody you find arrogant is highly un-wiki. You have to be civil to everybody in this place! I'm sorry, but I will again merely post a link that explains it: Wikipedia:Etiquette. I do think you expect rather a lot, if you think other editors have to take the time to pre-digest and summarize the policy pages for you, rather than you clicking on them and reading them for yourself. (They have been written as clearly and concisely as possible.) I do appreciate that you're very busy, but so am I, and most editors here. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 19:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

beckjord

I don't really want to get involved in this entire mess, (I'm a neutral observer who wants to keep his anonymity). See [5] for Beckjord's threat. --68.161.181.139 01:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Bishonen | talk 01:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I do humbly apologise for all of this mess. User:Beckjord has been insulted ever since he came to Wikipedia, thus explains why he is acting this way. In spite of what is listed on the Bigfoot sites, in which people 'will' shoot at this thing, even has actually shot at this thing, User:Dreamguy and company says that this is "silly", is in violation of WP:NOR, and removed this material. thus I may suspect that User:Beckjord may have a point about some Wikis. Stand by for more........

And, again, I do regret the actions I have taken, and do humbly apologise for the inconviences. Martial Law 01:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Beckjord

User Beckjord believes that he has new info. regarding the Bigfoot article, only that he gets reverted by User:Dreamguy and allies, and he easily loses his temper, thus you have your revert wars. Martial Law 01:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've found, on the Bigfoot Discussion page statements that User:Dreamguy has made that could be considerd insulting. See User:Dreamguy's contribs as well. Martial Law 01:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept your apology, of course (not that *I* needed one!) I have to say I haven't seen any comment by DreamGuy about Beckjord that's remotely as aggressive and insulting as the way Beckjord routinely refers to DreamGuy. Perhaps you have some specific diffs to share? Btw, there may be more revert wars now, considering Beckjord's intemperate call for his supporters to come in and do battle on Bigfoot. Compare my notice on the administrator's noticeboard. Bishonen | talk 02:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

How YOU can edit the Bigfoot article at WIKIPEDIA.ORG --VilaWolf

Thanks, VilaWolf. I kind of assumed that you were the anon you can see supplying the link above, that's why I avoided giving you any credit for your whistleblowing in my WP:ANI post. Would you like me to go back and cover you in glory? :-) Bishonen | talk 02:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I also sincerely and humbly apologise to Wikipedia for any and all inconviences. Martial Law 03:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

NOT going for it

I am NOT responding to User:Beckjord's campaign at all. Martial Law 02:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk page:

Would it be possible for me to remove the latest post from User:Beckjord from my talk page, old data w/o being penalized ? Martial Law 03:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I don't see any very recent post from him... do you mean from several days ago? Anyway, there's no question of any sanctions for removing posts from your own talkpage (not even if you should remove warnings and criticisms, although people would think that a less than frank and open thing to do). The way I see it, in this case it's purely a courtesy issue between yourself and Beckjord. You know, I'm getting the feeling you're letting this thing worry you more than it deserves to. Do what you want, take a deep breath, you're not responsible for the whole mess. Bishonen | talk 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Martial Law 03:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You, a Admin. ? Congrats. Martial Law 03:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

VMORO and Bulgarian

An editor by the name of user:VMORO is stubbornly trying to delete additions to Bulgarian language that he doesn't personally agree with. He's even removing the reference to the IPA handbook itself and he's not discussing the issue. Think you could join in the fray with some enlightened comments?

Peter ^Isotalo 04:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

! I hope you're kidding. Remember what your last little request expanded to? I'll take a look tomorrow, but you need to internalize the fact that I have no idea of phonetics, the basic terminology, the well-known systems. It's all Ancient Greek to me. Bishonen | talk 04:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Just duck out if it starts getting complicated... The issue here is just that VMORO refuses to recognize the IPA handbook chart because it has two allophones in it (besides the six recognized phonemes). I don't think he's actually reading any of the explanatory paragraphs, though. It's more an issue of not removing valid references than the detailes of phonetics. Essentially, I don't there's any difference between what VMORO and I are claiming, except that he doesn't seem to know about the allophones and therefor assumes that it's all wrong.

Mind you, he has not attempted to engage in discussion and he seems to be a very avid reverter in general.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've watchlisted it, and will definitely block if he calls me "honey". Bishonen | talk 00:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont't think VMORO really got your warning. Have a look at this diff. I posted a final request to get him to talk about it at his talkpage

Peter ^Isotalo 04:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't look like he did, does it? Let's see if my block gets his attention. Bishonen | talk 04:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

War called off

Go to User:Beckjord's Talk page. Am still watching. Will need Admin help. Martial Law 06:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You need admin help with what? Beckjord has been blocked for 48 hours by El C, specifically for this post. As you probably saw at WP:ANI (I note you have posted there), people are starting to question whether we should keep a guy like that around at all. As far as I'm concerned, Beckjord has worn out all the newbie tolerance and helpful advice (that he never listens to anyway) that people have been extending to him. There's no special, obscure Wikipedia technique that he needs to master in order to simply not insult people. All it takes is a smidgeon of common sense and common courtesy. He's been getting away with murder long enough, and his edit to the userpage of El C, of all people—a highly respected administrator who has been patient with him—was crass idiocy. I'd rather not have anything more to do with Beckjord after that. I might do a bit of a rewrite of Erik Beckjord, though—I suppose you'll agree its present state isn't exactly encyclopedic. --Bishonen | talk 15:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

...brain... asploding... [6] ... send... help... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't panic, whitecoats on the way. Secret code cracked. WAFE password: MALCONTENT. Bishonen | talk 20:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Independent School League

Kindly restore the Independent School League (Washington, DC Area) page to its former state. Thank you. Powerco

You are correct. Thanks for fixing this page. It turns out there are three Independent School Leagues in the United States. Each exists without the knowledge of the others. See ISL.

What I am trying to do is allow all three to exist in Wikipedia. Thank you

OK... so, you mean it's all right the way it is, with the page at Independent School League (Washington, D.C.)? If not, I can easily move it back. Bishonen | talk 00:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, please include the area. The Washington DC area includes prep schools in Northern Virginia, Maryland, and the District.

Done. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Iota phi theta/Iota Phi Theta

Bishonen, unfortunately when you edited the name of Iota phi theta to Iota Phi Theta, you deleted a different article about a group with the same name but a different organization. Iota phi theta was a local service fraternity started at John Carroll Univ. as the article states, however, when you capitalized the "p" and the "t" you erased the article about Iota Phi Theta Fraternity, Inc. (unfortunately another user had changed it's name to Iota Phi Theta instead of the original Iota Phi Theta Fraternity, Inc. which left the article open to something like this happening).

Is there anyway to revert the article so that the name of Iota Phi Theta Fraternity, Inc. can be changed back so that this won't happen again or is the article lost? Suntzu1963 13:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Slogan

"The Pathetic Fallacy wants you!" Just came up with that. Geogre 19:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Materials for making nengajo for Japanese New Yea

Happy New Year!—Theo (Talk) 00:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC) PS Nice fireworks!

Shinen Akimashite Omedeto Gozaimasu! Paul August ☎ 06:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm... OK, sensei! Darn it, I should have said Omedetou Kurisumasu while I had the chance, it's the only remotely seasonal "Japanese" I know. Would you like an .ogg of Sailor Moon singing it? :-) Bishonen | talk 14:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Gott nytt år, Bish! Tupsharru 07:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

God fortsättning, Tups! Bishonen | talk 14:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Felix novo annum? (I got a hammer, and I hammer in the morning/ I hammer in the evening/ All over this site.) Geogre 13:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so do I! See my Moljnar. :-) Oh, right, I see you already did. Hey, Geogre, I may be a little late calling you tonight (=this afternoon); I'd forgotten today's the day I go out for sushi with the gurls. Not much later, though. Bishonen | talk 13:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC).

Where is the edit button (really, I seem to be having difficulties locating it!)? How do I quote? By which I mean, happy new year! El_C 14:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Found it! Wow. Now only to ensure my ascent into madness inflicts maximum damage... El_C 14:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You too, all the best for 2006! Just keep in mind that the blue words are links already[7], and you'll be fine! Bishonen | talk 14:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Blue! Wow, that has become one sectiony talk page! And I thought mine was bad (esp. now with my stupid anti-archive vow)! El_C 14:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem on the time. I'm thinking of going off to lunch and taking my girlfriend with me, just so she can't say that I never take her anywhere. (The difference between Iraq and Vietnam? Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.) Anyway, I have nothing for or against Hollowinnermariolink, but when you lie about it, you're pretty much not an admin. To me, that carries a much longer shelf life than saying "fuck you" to a vandal (as happened with Lucky or Duncharris). Forget my looking at bigfoot, though. I have big enough feet. Geogre 15:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser request

Could you make a sock check on User:Hollow Wilerding, User:Winnermario (see Mel Etitis' suspicions) and User:DrippingInk (see Bunchofgrapes' comments)? I don't have a strong opinion about the puppetry, but please note that if DrippingInk and Winnermario are her socks, they're abusive all right. They always vote to support Hollow Wilerding's FACs, and jump in to scold those who oppose. The affair is highlighted at Hollow Wilerding's prematurely delisted but very interesting RFA. Bishonen | talk 13:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

Positive match: these three users are, without any question, the same editor (or, possibly, two or more people sharing the same connection, but I doubt that). Feel free to block based on attempt to use sockpuppets to stack opinion on FAC. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Request help on Bigfoot edit

Please view my edit and see if you approve.

Thanks, Bishojo.

beckjordBeckjord 07:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to take a look later. Bishonen | talk 14:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice

I would appreciate it if you no longer communicated with me. Holding a grudge against other users on Wikipedia is nothing to be proud of (not that I'm saying you're proud of it), but now that you know User:DrippingInk, User:Winnermario and myself, User:Hollow Wilerding all share the same computer, please do not bother me anymore. I will ensure that they no longer vote on any FACs I nominate, though I find this unfair, considering we are not the same people. But just so that it doesn't cause anymore controversy, I will make sure of it. Also, I will let you know that I do plan on running for RfA again one day (not anytime soon). Don't hold this case back on me when that time comes, because it isn't my fault. Remember to assume good faith, which I want to believe in with you yourself. For the time being, at least until the situation clears, could you refrain from speaking to me for a little while? If you need me though (which I highly doubt), you can find me editing where I usually edit. Thanks for reading this bothersome notice. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing: You didn't say that you shared a computer. You said that you didn't know one of them and that the other was across the street. If you go up for RFA again, I know that I'll bring that up. It isn't the sockpuppets but the dishonesty about it. That's pretty much trolling. Compared to just telling the truth from the start, this hurts more and accomplishes less. Geogre 15:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. As it appears on User talk:Geogre, it appears as though User:Bishonen was informing a handful of Wikipedians that I was up for adminship, sporting a header "Remember Hollaback Girl?" I suppose this tells me that he does still hold a grudge against me from this situation. Oh well. My loss, but not my life. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen is a friend of mine, as you can see. We were both appalled at the "Lola" comments on FAC. In the past I've voted against RFA's on people who showed inappropriate temperament on FAC or other places. Hence, as I rarely look into RFA, she knew that I'd be interested. I was. My vote there was in keeping with my previous habit. Regardless of why you were deceptive, being deceptive has ruined your credibility. If you deceive three times, few will believe you on the fourth time. More to the point, if you believed that you had to, you must either have had real life issues that prevented honest editing or misunderstood the site. Your comment that the whole site has been organized against you from the first day testifies to the latter. Honestly, there are few people watching carefully enough to hold a grudge. There are far too many people on the site for that kind of thing. Geogre 16:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how many people have told me that... when the next RfA comes around, you can question me in whatever way you want. That doesn't change the facts that I've provided at the administrator's board. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hollow Wilerding, I'm going to assume that your talk of "bothering" you and "holding a grudge" is your way of thanking me for placing a link on your talkpage to the WP:ANI thread so that you could respond there. Don't mention it. I'll only communicate with you again if I should need again, for courtesy, to give you information that you need. (Edit conflict:) Oh, it appears that I informed "a handful of Wikipedians", does it? Are you unfamiliar with the use of the "Contributions" button (lefthand column on all userpages)? Please use mine before flinging about any more wild accusations, and it'll show you how many people I informed of your RFA (was it a secret..?) namely one: Geogre. It's true that he can be a handful sometimes. Please don't post on my page again. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Following this message, which will be my last as per your wishes, I would also appreciate it if you never posted on my user talk page again. Also, please leave User:DrippingInk alone, and please respond to the thread. You have been a burden to me, and I believe this is where it should end. Continue editing Wikipedia, and have a good life. Goodbye. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Socks vs. vote-spamming during FACs

Oy ve. I just noticed this. As an administrator, do you know if spamming user pages for votes is comparable to sockpuppetry during FAC votes? Which is the worst abuse of the FAC process? Is FAC vote-spamming also a blockable offense? This has nothing to do with HW; it is just a question I've had. Thank you. Saravask 05:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hi there, Saravask. There's no comparison. To spam talkpages is merely mildly frowned on, see this guideline. My personal opinion, shared by many, is that seasoned users with self-respect don't do it; but it's by no means a blocking or even scolding offense. More of a social faux pas, which, in the case of a newbie, should be pointed out very gently.

Sockpuppets, as such, are allowed, as long as they're well behaved. But abusive socks, i. e. secondary accounts used for deception, votestacking, creating an illusion of greater support, constitute a major and blockable violation. Well, just as common sense dictates. Few people are inclined to excuse even the greenest newbie for doing something like that. See the official policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Hope this helps. Did you want to throw the book at some talkpage spammer? Can't do that if it's got sharp edges, sorry. ;-)

The WP:ANI thread you link to is now a novel to read. :-(. I doubt I'll contribute any more. I've said my say, and have had my carefully argued block of HW's multiuser account unblocked without discussion by another admin, so right now I feel somebody else can look after this problem user and good luck to them. (Incidentally, SlimVirgin reblocked shortly afterwards, which isn't mentioned on WP:ANI.) --Bishonen | talk 12:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, it's all about deception. Deceiving voters is blockable. Just calling on friends is irrelevant, especially if the friends are clueless. It only takes one substantial set of objections, after all, and it's easy to object to nearly any article. When a number of previously unheard of voters show up at FAC, a great many folks start looking for flaws to object to. That's a different class of offense from lying, and I disagree with the page on sockpuppets: I think they should all be blocked, without exception, that there is no excuse for them whatever. I'm kind of Catonian, though. Geogre 13:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I regret having suggested that HW might be brave for behavior that now I understand as railroading the community (hey, I was very new at FAC back then, and still am now). Hang in there — all your comments and actions are, as shown by the broad community consensus, most certainly called for here. Saravask 18:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Death in Venice

Good news! I have returned. Life is back to normal. I don't suppose you would like to have a look at my sensitive and poignant portrayal of a true love story here [8] you will cry, you will weep, and laugh at this beautiful story, not since the days a of "Aberlard and whatsername" have I read such beauty in prose - where can you help? - you ask - just a little copyedit, and find some pictures, I'm going to ask Fil if he ever returns to caption a foto of Venice with the bit from The Cantos about her - I don't have time to read the whole flaming poem to find it, he will know where it is. I am now composing myself for the death scene, and the funereal gondela crossing the silenly lapping waters of the lagoon, as Venetians gently weep, and a hidden orchestra plays that Mahler bit from death in Venice - Oh weepy weepy. Happy new Year! Giano | talk 12:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentiment

Well, someone rushed in where angels feared to tread and wrote Sentimental novel. Is this a good thing? Well, we have had our chances for over a year. It's fairly rudimentary, but it exists, so links have all turned blue. Geogre 23:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been filed against you: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen. DO NOT block the endorser of the RfC. Siblings WC 02:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Although it was not you who blocked the Siblings WC account, I would consider you look back at what you have done these past three days: you assumed, did not allow input of the three users, and because of you, it doesn't look like they're going to be capable of editing here anymore. All because of you, and yet you did not even know if they were sock puppets or separate accounts. This yeilds the fact that you've over-abused your sysop powers, and have hurt the editing privileges of three innocent Wikipedians. This displays poor use and function of your controls, and sets a terrible example for Wikipedia. It was not DrippingInk, Winnermario, or Hollow Wilerding who created all of the issues and controversey. Not them. It was you. Had you not interfered with their editing accounts, I'm sure the three of them would still be happy and not miserable like what you've demonstrated. As you may have noticed, an RfC has been filed against you and some users have endorsed it; maybe this will finally make you realize that everything you did to these three Wikipedians was indeed in bad faith. Though I am against sysops having their powers stripped of them, yours should be disabled for a day or two for your actions. Next time before you block for assuming sock puppetry, locate the evidence, which you simply ignored. Isn't that what an encyclopedia, furthermore Wikipedia is all about? Citing references and sources. Evidence in this case too. You failed to communicate that. I think you should apologize to the three users. 64.231.155.175 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I suppose I'll be blocked now. 64.231.155.175 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. And didn't you say you had posted on my page for the last time? But then you've said so many things. Any further posts from you will be deleted on sight. Bishonen | talk 03:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Grr... Too wonderful...

Don't be like that, eh?

We often kick people when they are down, or acting stupid *cough* Brandt *cough* and it's not nice. It's understandable but it's not nice.

And if you want a full accounting of my incivility, I'll direct you to a couple of admins who I'm sure have extensive lists.

brenneman^(t)(c) 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hollow

What is going on with HW is a perfect example of poor handling of a situation. I don't pin all the blame on you, because HW has been very melodramatic and hostile, but surely you recognize that there was no good reason for this have come out the way it has. Don't you think she's a good editor? No one can deny such excellent content contributions, suspicions of sockpuppeting or not. An admin has to be able to think, when taking action in a case like this, what is best for the project? Majora's Mask needed to go to a revote, and all the suspected accounts needed to be lumped together as one for any future voting purposes, but that was all that needed to be done. We don't do away with good editors just because they get on our nerves. Somebody has got to remain to write articles. Everyking 07:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask, no, I don't think she's a good editor. (Heck, I rather doubt she's even a she.) I think this may be a student of the real Courtni Wilerding, 24, English teacher in Toronto; I cannot believe an English teacher wrote the post above, which is neither better nor worse than her usual article style. Look at it, James. "I would consider you look back"? "This yeilds the fact that you've over-abused your sysop powers"? "Miserable like what you've demonstrated"? "You failed to communicate that"? A teacher? Heck, I can barely believe she's a native speaker. I looked at her articles when they were on FAC, and, no, I don't think their style was noticeably better than how she writes on my page; it certainly wasn't when she put in a new edit, before somebody else got to "copyedit" it. It wasn't just a matter of grammar and vocabulary, either, but the structure was bad on every level--inexpressive, unclear, illogical. I was all set to help out, I often do on FAC, and pre-FAC, even with articles where the content isn't interesting to me. (I just copyedited Bulbasaur a few days ago, on request.) But the way she spat at any criticism put me completely off the idea of trying to work with her. As for somebody needing to remaining to write articles, I think HW is exactly the kind of problem editor that's likely to make others—good contributors—leave the project in frustration.

That's for your direct question. I'm sorry you think I handled the situation poorly.I don't agree, though. Bishonen | talk 08:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I won't make any guesses about the identity or sex of the user or anything like that. Normally I figure it's best to just take people at their word, unless they're somehow doing harm by assuming an identity. She could just be an elementary school English teacher, anyway, or maybe she just isn't a stickler about her English when she's not at work. I'm not too worried about any of that. My basic point is that Hollow (and Winnermario, claimed to be her predecessor account) has added a great deal of content to Wikipedia, got one article indisputably up to FA status (Cool) and raised several others to very high levels of quality. And she was working at an impressively fast pace, too, I should note. And I'm not at all convinced by the "driving other editors away" logic. You could justify a lot with that argument, if you wanted to. I don't know who these saintly editors are, impeccably polite and thin-skinned but as hard working as Hollow, that she is keeping at bay. I think you take what you can get, more or less. If somebody's doing good work, you want to keep them around, even if there are some personality issues. Everyking 08:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

James, do you have diffs for any of these great edits? I looked for some good editing during her RfA but couldn't find any. The edits she made to the FA were all minor (so far as I can see, but I haven't checked every single one), including edits like "Cool peaked within the top twenty ... on the ... charts on which it charted ..." [9] Her work that I have seen was not good and her behavior was appalling. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression she pretty much wrote those articles on the Gwen singles. If she was just making minor edits, who was doing the major work? Maybe she was just adding a bit at the time, instead of adding big chunks all at once. That's quite common. Everyking 08:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What bothers me is the lying. I didn't read 'her' FA's, as I'm no fan of pop song articles under the best of circumstances (you may recall that I didn't agree with an article on "Hard Day's Night," much less an FA on a pop song). Since I don't agree with the inclusion of pop song articles, I certainly wasn't going to vote on FAC's on pop songs, but we can't assume good faith when someone demonstrates, and very clearly, that his intention is to deceive and to get his way in spite of the community's point of view. That is abuse. I feel the same way when it's an admin going around procedure and when it's a sock puppet and when it's a "Oh, that wasn't me: my cousin got my password and used my computer" and when it's a block evasion. The quality of the person's contributions is irrelevant, because lying and abuse and childish demands to get one's way is too high a price to pay for any edits of any quality. There are tens of thousands of editors out there who can write coherent English about pop culture, but this one user is going to sap our time and energy trying to find out what is true and what a reflection? No. Geogre 13:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfair block

I think the block you put on User:VMORO was unfair. Despite your personal content disputes (in which I take no position), he didn't violate neither 3RR nor any other rule that should get him blocked. You accuse him for ignoring your warning, as if it was part of WP:RULES. His edit summaries were not the most civil on earth, but they still wouldn't be classified under 'excessive personal attacks', I've known much worse that goes unnoticed [10]. Finally you indirectly warn him not to edit that article again, or you'll have him blocked with no prior warning. Due all the respect but you have no right to do such thing. Miskin

Hollow, Winnermario equal suckpuppets?

According to Hollow, she, Winnermario and her brother, use the same computer. They all have their personal Wiki accounts. You say they are suckpuppets because all of their accounts lead to the same IP, but if what they say is true, then they are no suckpuppets. Is that correct? My question: is it against Wiki policy for people to use the same computer and use their own personal Wiki accounts, as Hollow claimed to do? Someone else who might be using Wiki, could log into their account from my computer and start editing. Could you then accuse us for being suckpuppets? What if someone edits from a public computer, such as one from a library, where others might have used it to access their Wiki account?

Well, I'm really not asking for your personal opinion, but for the Wiki policy. You don't seem to have any concrete evidence that they are suckpuppets, other than their IP being the same - which, in my opinion, is not evidence enough. It can only work as a lead. I also disagree with you when you said that she's not a good editor. In my opinion, anyone who contributes with info, is doing good; and all who do good, are good. --Anittas 15:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Anittas, I'm a little tired of going on and on about these issues, so I won't post any elaborate discussion at this time. I think I've made my position clear on WP:ANI. For the policy issues you mention, please see also Kelly Martin's Outside View at Requests for comment/Bishonen. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Winnermario and Hollow Wilerding share the same writing style and contribute to the same set of articles. What's more, it you check their histories, Hollow Wilerding was created and immediately started editing like wildfire the very same day Winnermario stopped: Nov 5, 2005. What else happened Nov 5, 2005? Winnermario was blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Does this additional evidence sway you that Winnermario and Hollow Wilerding are sockpuppets?

DrippingInk is a more circumstantial case, since they don't have that telltale one-stops-and-the-other-starts moment. But they do have a similar style and similar interests, and when we have 2 of 3 accounts on the computer sockpuppeting, and lying, and screaming, it's not much of a stretch to call it.

Policy-wise, people sharing a computer is allowed, but once a circumstantial case is made that they are sockpuppets (or meat puppets), the checkuser can clinch it. The circumstantial case must come first in nearly every case, as I understand it. See Kelly Martin's comments in Bishonen's RFC, if you havent. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bish, could you take a look at

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rbj and possibly add a comment, if you feel so inclined? r b-j 16:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

DrippingInk, Hollow Wilerding, Winnermario: appropriate block

Hello. I have just registered an account on Wikipedia. I was searching for an administrator to help me become familiar with Wikipedia, and stumbled upon you, Bishonen. In regard to the blocks of DrippingInk, Hollow Wilerding, and Winnermario, I must make it clear that the operators of these accounts was... questionable. You see, I was introduced merely yesterday (January 2, 2006) to Wikipedia. The woman known as Hollow Wilerding presented me with her computer as a late Christmas gift as she is ordering a new computer. It might be in your personal interest to know that these three accounts have not been operated by three separate people; these accounts have been operated by two people. William Wilerding owned the DrippingInk account, while Mariah Wilerding owned the Winnermario account, and the reincarnation of Hollow Wilerding. Blocking these users was certainly the best decision that any administrator could make — they are deceitful people with terrible attitudes. Also, they are very clueless when it comes to English, which is a shame considering Mariah is an English teacher. I, Cruz Nelson, served as an English student of Mariah's from 2004–2005. I must admit that it was like living in hell; I have no idea how she was capable of receiving her graduate diploma. All in all, I have come to announce that she literally gave me her computer in an attempt to return to Wikipedia under a new IP address. Although some of their contributions, namely Cool (song) were generous and positive, overall these two siblings are not going to go far in life. Please understand what I am saying.

I must place emphasis on the fact that I, Cruz Nelson, am now operating the computer of a former Wikipedian Hollow Wilerding. The IP address, or from what I was explained to by Mariah, will be very identical. I would like to take this time to come out in the open, unlike Mariah and William, and announce that this computer is being operated by one user, and one user only. If I am having issues with anything related to Wikipedia, I will contact you Bishonen. Thank you for listening and good afternoon. –Cruz AFade ^{(Speak about it} | ^{How many?)} 17:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wow! this page is better than TV Giano | talk 17:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I've applied the obvious block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time for this right now (at work). Could someone else review this and (probably) block new sock Cruz_Along (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet! I am a neighbour of hers and wish to work on some articles. Please let me be and if you do, you'll realize that I'm not a sock puppet. I do have an interest in Gwen Stefani, but I will stray from those articles for a long period of time just to prove to you that I am not what you are assuming and accusing me of. –Cruz Along ^{(Speak about it | How many?)} 18:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

HW has a new sock of her own, Empty_Wallow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If this weren't ridiculous before, it definitely is now. --keepsleeping sleeper cell 19:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I may not be the brightest penny in the IT network administrator tray, but the computer doesn't carry the IP address, last time I checked. The ISP allocates the IP address, in the case of static IP's, and it's going to give a new IP address to a new account holder (at the ISP). The only way it's going to be the same IP is if it's the same telco address/provider address (provider account). A dynamic IP is going to be...dynamic. No one can see what computer you're using (unless they're also virus writers and plant trojans and things like that), so no one cares. Congratulations on the free computer, but there really shouldn't be an issue, unless you have the same IP. Geogre 19:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I knew a boy at school whose name was Willard - is that any help? Giano | talk 20:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A sock puppet of myself? Every single other account Cruz and I edited under are blocked. We cannot access them anymore. Therefore, this account is not a sock puppet because there are no other accounts that we possess entry to. The administrators had better start learning the difference between the words "main account" and "sock puppet". This is my main account and Cruz no longer edits on Wikipedia. That means I am not a sock puppet of myself. So, since we did not do anything wrong on Wikipedia, we are obligied to edit whenever we feel like. A surprise is in store for you people, actually — a good surprise. Kind of insane of me considering you are demanding that I never return to Wikipedia. But hey, I'm the only one assuming good faith here. I will post your surprises on your user talk pages shortly. —Empty Wallow | Wollaw Ytpme 20:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yawn

Yawn. You guys, Bunch, Giano, Geogre, etc, would you please just delete posts from obvious HW footwear on sight if you catch sight of them on my page? Don't waste time replying. Now that you've already mixed these absurdities with your thoughtful observations (I'm referring to Giano), which I would by no means remove, it's not so easy to just clean up the page anymore. It gets long. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

Unreasonable block

You have blocked me for 3R simply because I lost my temper with the crap from Greek nationalists. The Balkans pages generally are a disgrace, with lies and propaganda everywhere. It is only a matter of time before Wikipedia is sued for its pretence of providing accurate data while openly allowing manipulation of the information on it. I have tried being polite and it gets nowhere because these people are disgusting little racist nationalists: they have no interest in the truth and are manipulating you and others.--87.202.24.206 21:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? I'm not sure I've ever blocked anybody for 3RR. Certainly not in the past few months. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

Aha, I see, you're the same as 87.202.25.88. I've never blocked you for any reason. User:Izehar blocked you, see History. I merely placed a warning on the 87.202.25.88 page, which you chose to ignore. I suggest you register a name account and edit on the same conditions as other users. Or are you already Martin Baldwin-Edwards, choosing to IP-hop anonymously in order to game the 3RR? I just placed this note on Talk:Greeks to try to counteract the unfair advantage that gives you over those that play by the rules. Bishonen | talk 06:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

110% support!

I can't believe that someone would file an RfC against you. It's totally out of line and the responsible parties should be blocked for trolling. You have my unwavering and total support. - Lucky 6.9 23:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lucky! There are some nice cupcakes on the page, please help yourself (and yes, I'll take the whipped cream, please). Er, Hollow Wilerding already IS blocked. I hardly think an RFC created by a blocked user has any legitimacy, it should prolly be speedied, but I kind of hope nobody does. :-) User:Search4Lancer, who aided and abetted her by endorsing the RFC, fully knowing she was blocked, is trolling, I agree. Please see my WP:ANI note on him here. I'm a little disappointed that that one dropped like a stone: I would have thought the principle was of some interest, but nobody has commented at all. :-/ Bishonen | talk 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In the name of common decency, I suggest that if you have anything to say about me, you say it to me, rather than talking about me behind my back. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 00:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Your interest in common decency is rather unexpected. I'd rather speak to you on WP:ANI, and I have done. Bishonen | talk 01:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, so can I have some shrubbery now? El_C 23:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You want a shrubbery, but a NICE one? Of course! Bishonen | talk 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and some elderberries would'nt hurt. El_C 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, it dropped like a stone because all of this is supposed to be taken care of. For her boyfriend/neighbor/husband/brother being naive about IP addresses, "she" sure seems to be able to get new dynamic IP's quickly. This is three new accounts to evade a block. All of this, and risking an actual ban (which is not the same) just because "she" can't accept the time away from the project that the overwhelming number of users has suggested. Sheesh. The way forward has always been open: take the block, leave Wikipedia for a week, and then see what can be done. Ask people, rather than tell them. Be polite rather than demanding. Accept the verdict of the community rather than trying to throw stinkbombs at it. Geogre 02:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... nice but dull, and increasingly not the wiki-way, it seems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I would do it, too. But there will be a cost involved (yes, another shrubbery!). El_C 00:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You do know that you have one of the most interesting talk pages in all of Wikipedia, and if we delete the crap, our laughs will end... Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 00:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to find out just how many people have this talk page watched. Damn, Bish, you have a fan club, or at least your talk page does. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Her talk page is only as good as the last poster. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, don't have this page watchlisted. I just don't have anywhere else to go until the libraries reopen and I get my hands on the DNB. (And then watch out: I will do John Cleland over again, although I doubt that I'll be able to get my hands on a scholarly edition of that book that he wrote, what with where I am and all and the interests of publishers to keep the book in print, but shorn of any useful notes or discussion and the inability of even scholars even now to talk about it without sniggering or frowning in righteous condemnation.) (It's porn, but it's very, very good porn.) Geogre 02:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, as a matter of scholarly interest, how do you define "very, very good porn"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Any that stars me? - brenneman^(t)(c) 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Doubt it. At least in the 18th century, it's not your finger you're supposed to waggle. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Question

Read what I wrote at User talk:Empty Wallow, and tell me if you would in fact be willing to let the past issues drop if she does what I have suggested. Please don't cling to hostilities if this can be made to work. Everyking 08:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You're not really going to ignore me, are you? Everyking 08:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. I'm slow, that's all. I've read what you wrote to HW. I don't think it matters if I ever mention her again or not; I can't believe the rest of the community would drop this in any case. But no, I'm afraid I'm not willing to do what you ask. I could not muster any faith in HW actually doing what you suggest, after what's been going down, even if she seemed to do it or said she was doing it. Have you really researched this case? For instance, the early stages of it? HW was never a bona fide user. She was a sock created in November 2005 to evade the (richly earned) block of Winnermario. James, I 'm not happy about the way you encourage HW to think of herself as a victim of my "very bad approach", or your telling her she's been, for God's sake, "wronged"—by me, of course, since it's me she so understandably "counterattacks". I dislike especially the way, in your message to her, you dismiss my critique of her contributions as yet another outflow of my unreasonable malice, after you didn't bother to respond to me about it at all. I'm altogether sorry you speak of me with so little respect. If you have more to say about my hounding HW off the wiki, how about telling the community? Give HW some public support, take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that did not work. That's sad, that something so small as to ask someone to spare an editor if they make unfailingly good and uncontroversial contributions is unacceptable. Everyking 10:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)