User talk:Bishonen

Bookmarks

ice and fire emigration sandbox articles moods Bishzilla diff instructions diffs and links warning templates removing warnings non-apology apology

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Chipmunk of the day.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

:-(

And I just made this...

Hope you feel better. Miranda 06:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen feel fine, she lazy admin, is all. Thank you little user for cool zilla movie! Bishzilla | ROARR!! 09:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

(Looks at box. Begins to have epileptic seizures. Decides that those are better than the FAC/FAR talk pages. Puts the London Olympic mascot and the Bishzilla banner on split screen, enjoys the clarity.) Geogre 12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Rude

I'm sorry if you thought my rationale was rude. I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I did feel like your revert was a bit strange since it gushed about one particular edit that was basically a revert and a removal of text. I'm not sure that that kind of edit is ever very spectacular, but if you're willing to concede a difference of opinion, bury the hatchet, and move on I'm more than willing to go along with you. --ScienceApologist 12:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

After that classic, of course ! I'm delighted to. Bishonen 12:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

Tolkien comment

Old discussion I picked up on and replied to here. Though you might be interested. Do you have a link to the original FAR discussion? Carcharoth 22:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks for unblocking me! I have new chipmunk stories, btw. Will author em soon! El_C 14:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's some comic relief. El_C 03:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen in admin purdah, but that never stop her from wheel-warring. All she think of is hearing El C's chipmunk stories at Niagara Falls [dino snort]. 'shonen naughty admin, turn her bit over to 'zilla! 12:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC). (See 'zilla world-class cool animated sig!)

Coming up soon! El_C 17:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I took some great pics of chipmunks 20 minutes ago; I'm gonna create a commons account and will upload em momentarily. El_C 21:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We are on! El_C 23:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Struck of a heap by so much cute. New feature "Chipmunk of the day", see top of page ! Bishonen | talk 13:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

That chipmunk looks like the "Woman in the Radiator" from Eraserhead. (Rather than her looking like it, that is.) Geogre 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the involved admins (anti-me, obviously) is now trying to legitimize the user who blocked (see the latter's talk page). El_C 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you legitimize an account that retired, came out of retirement for a single block, and then went back to sleep. Sure looks illegitimate to me. Geogre 02:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no possible justification for that block. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's like an echo chamber, let me tell you. Elsewhere, too. El_C 08:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

New addition, entitled chipetting! El_C 04:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as per your email: "the person" petting, feeding, etc. (not with the dress) —and taking pictures at the same time— is none other than yours truly! (today's addition was the result of an hour and a half of chipmunk lounging, between 3:00 and 4:30pm). El_C 04:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

How adorable! I love chipmunks, I've never lived anywhere which had them though. I stayed at a house with a backyard full one month, spent most of my free time watching them. They are such comics. Puppy now has chipmunk envy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The key to their little hearts: peanuts. Mind you, other chipsters I've met are so timid, they don't pick up peanut till well after you leave. These are tamest chippies, groundhog, and rabbitty, ever! I'll have another go at it soon. El_C 19:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

All fed chipmunks look like Dizzy Gillespie (or April Gillespie), but the one to my left, with the peanut hanging out of his mouth, swaying, looks for all the world like he's playing the peanut and performing jazz. Geogre 13:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a neat take on it; I bet that, for them, a peanut is the sweetest jam. El_C 19:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Very cute. The one with eyes closed is in ecstasy (ecstasty? dare I say "nutgasm"?) --Justanother 00:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly more chipetting today, if the weather clears up (let's hope!). El_C 09:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A new policy for you

Given your skill with tongue-in-cheek, I recently started a new not-quite policy that I think you'll like -- Wikipedia:Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them (shortcut: wp:delicious) Raul654 17:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about badly-named category

Hi, Bishonen. Thanks for the adminship award you left on my talk page. Of course I'm a bit hurt that you didn't support me, but then I always knew that the monster was much nicer than you! (Did you see the lovely chipmunk she left for me?)

I have a question, as I know you're very experienced. I know that if someone creates an article with the title misspelled, and lots of edits are made, it would not be appropriate to copy and paste the contents into a new article with the correct title, as the history has to be preserved. So you'd simply move the page, and then delete the old title or not, as appropriate.

As you can see from the conversation here and here, someone created Category:Novels by George Elliot, and then realised the the spelling was incorrect, so he put a db tag on it. The page Category:Novels by George Eliot already existed. I had actually just gone to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, to try out my new buttons, and I found the Elliot category and deleted it. I then found that the creator had also created Category:Works by George Elliot. There was no Category:Works by George Eliot. I wondered would it be possible to move it, but there's no move button for categories. I suggested that he should create the page again with the correct title, if he feels that that category is necessary (I'm not sure that it is), but I'd just like to double check with you that that's the right way to do it. It does seem that in the case of a category, there wouldn't be whole paragraphs of text that would have to be attributed to the correct editor, so there probably isn't any problem with GFDL issues. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of categories could be put on a pinky nail, so why don't you ask the monster (snort)? Seriously, your solution is exactly what I would spontaneously do myself. Kevin has created Category:Works by George Eliot now, and is clearly on board for the misspelt one to be speedy deleted, so go ahead. It might could maybe be redirected instead... if categories ever are, I'm not sure. Anyway, I don't see any real point. As for the need for Category:Works by George Eliot, I'm rather dubious about that, too. GE did write plenty of non-fiction, to be sure, but nothing anybody would be likely to read today. I'd bet good money it's all out of print. But it can't hurt, can it? Maybe there's something of interest, such as collected letters. If you're feeling really ambitious (new brooms..) you could always keep an eye on the Works category, and propose it for deletion if it's still unpopulated in a month or two. Perhaps Kevin is planning to write articles for it? Bishonen | talk 10:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for that, and sorry for disturbing you while you were kind of on a wikibreak. I had actaully seen the notice on your page earlier, but when you posted on mine, I assumed it was over. Someone else has deleted the "Elliot" category; Kevin had put a db tag on it. As for why I don't ask the monster, well, while she's very superior to you in graciousness and gentleness, I think you just manage to beat her in literacy. Her coding skills greatly impress me, but she seems a little weak on verbs, so I thought it was unlikely that she's just finished reading Impressions of Theophrastus Such, so I wasn't sure she'd know much about whether a separate category for works as opposed to novels of GE would be appropriate. I'll ask Kevin if he's planning on writing articles to fill the category. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note

I don't want to say that you and Giano are a "side" -- I think everyone is in this project together -- but I have noticed that the two of you do a lot of work together, and also that you fixed a typo in one of his posts, tonight, and I also know that you've felt alienated at times, and... I dunno, it just generally seemed that I should leave you this note. I'm sorry if I've ever contributed to that. I would like to think that I haven't, but that's more about what you feel than what I want. I really do mean what I said at AN/I, and at Giano's talk page, and what I'm saying here, now. I'm going to be offline for most of tomorrow, but I hope that I can come home to a wiki, and a community of fellow editors, that is more or less at peace with itself. Concluding essays and notes has never been my strong point, so I'll just finish with this: thank you. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Luna. Thanks for communicating. I've got to say, I don't know what you conflict of interest is, though you call it "obvious".[1]. That's something I've obviously missed, and it could account for the trouble I have in knowing what you mean altogether. But I appreciate the gesture. Bishonen | talk 10:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

Re: Giano's block

Qué? THAT sentence[2]? Blocked for incivility? I don't get it. Please explain what's uncivil about it—it may be moderately tactless, perhaps, but blockably incivil?—becaue I'm very much inclined to unblock. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC).

It appears that Giano moved my comments out of line in the preceding paragraph and into its own paragraph, presumably to remove the context. Here is the full thread as it was before my comment was moved. --bainer (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm having trouble believing my eyes here. He moved it "presumably to remove the context"? What kind of assumptions are you making? What kind of example of civility are you setting? And what kind of logic is that, for that matter? You supply a link to an edit of Giano's, and you say that you're blocking because of that edit. Are you claiming you didn't know where your link points, because Giano had moved your block message from its (I have to say very poorly conceived) placement in the midst of a thread? And as Geogre points out, you didn't even post on ANI before blocking an established editor for (non-existent) incivility... I think I must stop talking here before I say something I'll regret. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC).

No I moved it so it could be clearly seen and responded to, as you slipped a little thing like a block in mid thread. You did not post it on WP ANI either, I can understand that you were ashamed of it but hiding it like that was a bit naughty. Giano 15:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, do you think I could recruit -bainer to help work some NPOV into some of the LGAT and Scientology articles? If Giano's block was for incivility, I can only imagine the blocks that would be done at those articles for incivility on the talk pages. Lsi john 16:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, now. Bainer is being too quick, in my opinion, but he was engaged in dialog with Giano. He picked the wrong diff as proof, though, no doubt. Kelly is one of the few to have given up the tools under a cloud who is there, but she's not the only one, and that's more scandalous than that she is there. The place seems to have not very much connection to its name at all. If "former admins we trust," why not "future admins we trust?" Why not "former Wikipedians we trust?" Why not "outsiders we trust?" Better yet, "Why this channel at all?" It's that last one that has never been answered satisfactorily for me. Geogre 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, do you refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kelly_Martin2 that was deleted the other day following a discussion on IRC? --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, I had not known for sure that it was deleted after IRC conversation, but that was the only likely explanation. From the nomination to the declining to the erasure was lightning quick. I don't think we need to point to that, really. There are so many things that affect by-standers that come from that wretched slough that we hardly need to point to one that seems to have been insiders against insiders. Geogre 19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I read through the conversation dialogue. Although it was clearly opinionated, and heated, nothing jumped out and slapped my face and said INCIVIL or PERSONAL ATTACK. I do not support the way Giano was expressing himself, though I have found myself at that level of frustration too, in the past. For me, its a matter of an 'involved admin' making a decision on their own, rather than tossing it up for review. It puts a bad light on the entire process and on all admins. I do acknowledge, though, that my sarcasm was not polite and I have retracted it.

Bainer, I apologize for the sarcasm.

It's simply too easy for an admin to pull-the-trigger when they're personally and emotionally involvded. It simply should not be done. There is no shortage of admins to make these blocking decisions. It's not necessary to make them on our own. And, why allow for the possibility of conflict-of-interest (being involved personally) to even enter into the question. Get a neutral admin to make the decision, and the block will look better, smell better and will less likely be overturned. Lsi john 18:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh nonsense. I mean, I agree with everything you say above, but IMO sending thebainer off to babysit the Scientology articles is one of the best ideas I've heard in years. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Or if he's hot to block for incivility, he could block Proto/Neil for that highly offensive "shakes the sand out of their vaginas" comment. That's it for me today, I'm off. I'm going to get uncivil myself if I stick around this place too much longer. Sorry for griping on your page about it Bish, but Friday went and archived the discussion which Neil started off with that bit of revolting nastiness. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and "Neil" was nice and imperious toward me, too. He's just making friends all over today. (If you're on IRC too long, you must get used to speaking in nothing but vitriol and expecting prerogative: too much time on IRC, and these people are newbies to Wikipedia all over again.) Geogre 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

2nd Duke of Percy (Jacobite)

It's far too late and esoteric for you to be interested in, but Duke of Wharton was an interesting, tragic cat. Despite side tracking, I've finished a rewrite of the article. We really need his father, "Honest Tom," done up, as his article in the DNB has Leslie Stephens Whig triumphalism still in it, and he seems to make the son's rakishness. Some things have occurred to me -- like the generation after the rakes felt cheated, and so some of them try to out-rake the rakes. If rakes were rake-hells, these guys would be Hellfire Clubbers. It's sort of like 1980's ecstasy freaks upset that they missed 1968. Phone 3-ish? Geogre 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• You know, all the attention I'm getting for saying what I've been saying for months is interesting and all, but I really want someone to notice the biography of the Duke of Wharton. It's a very interesting life. Everyone's noticing the wrong damn things that I've been writing. Hell, even on IRC I was trying to get someone to write that flippin' article on the Battle of Malplaquet, but no. See, anyone who spends time on IRC who maintains that s/h/it is editing Wikipedia at the same time is fibbing or deluded: it takes up every second of one's time. There's no way to edit, even if you have an idea, material, and the ability, because (plonk!) there is (plonk!) so much (plonk!) going on. Are they just ashamed to admit that every hour with IRC open is an hour they're not doing squat with Wikipedia, or do they think that they're editing Wikipedia by being on IRC? This is why I always regret opening up the channel. Geogre 02:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, I've used whatever has passed for the "anto-vandalism channel" for a few years now, but it is more like playing whack-a-mole than article editing, I'll contend not all the IRC wiki-channels are more of a pain than an asset, fixing and kicking dumb vandals has to get done, no matter how mentally unchallenging (and for a fair amount of time that is exactly what I want). I'll certainly not disagree that article creation/editing for improvement is pretty much out of the question if absorbed by it though.--Alf ^melmac 12:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Whackamole is fun! Moles taste delicious when tenderized! Utgard Loki 13:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you, of course. There are two things that worry me. The first is that vandal hunting is not the same as vandal defending, and I worry that vandal hunting leaves people with a bias that all users are out to mess things up and that they are the last bastion of sanity. This is a natural consequence. Talk to me after I've graded a stack of papers, and I'll probably talk to you as if you were a 3 year old. When you deal with cleaning up filth all day, you begin to see filth everywhere. Strippers think all men are sex fiends (well, alright, so it's not always unjustified). I'm sure that plumbers see all people as poop factories. Too much vandal slapping, and you start thinking that you're "clueful" and everyone else needs to be dealt with in a summary fashion. You begin to hate "process wonkery" and other things, because what you've been doing has led you to see the project in black and white terms.

The consequence of that is that you can end up with a sort of channel-wide bias against time consuming process, time consuming documentation, etc. Wikipedia is set up for documentation, no power differentials, no cabals, etc., and so too much vandal squishing can push people imperceptibly into abusive actions. "Right is right and wrong is wrong" leads to "I have blocked you for incivility because your comments just are incivil."

What this has to do with IRC is that it can work really, really well for technical updates, prevention of mass disruption, defense against -bots and the like. It works really well at quick and coordinated performance of time-consuming activities (applying a template everywhere and the like). The problem is that it therefore propagates an accidental (I do not blame the users for falling victim to the medium) extrapolation to all other matters.

This part of my complaint can only be dealt with by the users always reminding themselves that not everything is vandalism, that long time users who "go nuts" or act "stupid" probably have damned good reasons, and it is, in fact, nuts and stupid to treat them like vandals. Geogre 18:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't disagree on any of that - I've seen the polarisation effect it has on certain individuals; One particular one received more than the usual share of group attempts to ameliorate their attitude, despite that, they are still are royal pain in the arse. I didn't like process-wonkery before I found out that there were vandals to whack, but that's probably due to having less of an attention span than your average hamster ;) I'm not sure what I'd do if I saw a long time user going nuts, these days with the knowledge that accounts are being compromised as well, it'd be even more difficult to decide what's going on and act accordingly. I remember spending a hell of lot of my early days on what was then VfD, that definitely warped my perception and I dumped it entirely, I still rarely visit, hence my subsequent advice that getting some kind of balance is a valuable key to not ending up wanting to throw the machine out of the window by 10am each day. I will invariably disagree with block out the blue, whether for new users vandalising a user page or for experienced users getting itchy or tetchy, there is no excuse for failing to attempt communication and going for the block button, except in circumstances like serial ip hoppping vandals whose previous messages are unlikely to have been received. I most definitely get objectionable when a substed message is dumped on my talk page, except those by bots doing their usual rounds.--Alf ^melmac 02:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• You can't have a DYK for that article. so get over it and write something else. :P Lsi john 02:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• • No, I can't. Still, I do so many de novo articles and never submit them to DYK, I ought to have a credit that I can draw on to get a rewrite in. Next up will be probably Edmund Arwaker, then Samuel Cobb. Those are great names. Not overwhelming writers, but cool names. Geogre 03:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Good catches on the article, and some of those links I had debated with myself when writing, so it all looks good to me. Now I have to just do the people I mentioned above, plus wade through the 5 pp. or so in the DNB (that's a lot in a folio) on Thomas and try to come up with something coherent. Geogre 22:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Getting set for another Giano block...?

Thebainer, I did a double take when I accidentally caught sight your new block warning in the history of Giano's page today, before the discussion above was well over.[3] After your first bad block only yesterday, you really ought to get off his case. Yesterday, you acted as if you didn't know that "Assume good faith" is official policy (though I'm sure you must), and obliviously kept repeating your bad-faith assumptions about Giano's motives—in this case, his motives for moving your badly-placed block message on his page, something for which a good-faith explanation was actually staring you in the face. When other users,, who had no trouble seeing the obvious explanation, unanimously criticized you over this, you gave no further explanation, let alone an apology to Giano. (You would like to see more civility from him; how about trying to lead by example?) You blocked an established editor for incivility, and the diff you gave as a reason showed, on any reasonable reading, no incivility. You didn't post on ANI. I mean... sheesh, there was just a lot wrong with that block.

Today (in my timezone) you begin by planting a warning template on an established user, a deplorable practice. If Giano needs blocking, don't you think that will occur to somebody else among our 1,000 admins? Do you credit yourself with unique insight into Giano's editing, so that you alone are capable of monitoring and upbraiding him? Or, if warning and blocking him doesn't occur to other admins, could that possibly be a hint that he doesn't need blocking? You took one shot; it didn't go well; now please consider leaving it to the rest of the community. Bishonen | talk 17:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

What are these comments (1, 2 - the ones I referred to in the warning) if not uncivil? --bainer (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thebainer... sorry, I don't understand. It's like you haven't read my post above. My message made lots of points, and asked questions. You address none of the points and answer none of the questions. Instead you address just about the only point I didn't make. For the record, and since you bring it up, I don't think those posts of Giano's are very civil. (He's under some provocation, but that doesn't interest you, apparently.) But you shouldn't be the one to warn him; you shouldn't use a template; and it sure wouldn't hurt if you acknowledged that your first block was both unwarranted and badly executed. Now I'd really appreciate it if you'd reply to what I said. You'd be doing us both a favor. I do believe it would be good for your adminning to take my messages seriously, and take them on board to the extent of doing some self-reflexion. If you have no faith in me, please consider taking the matter to ANI and inviting other input. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 09:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

You should read this conversation on Geogre's talk page if you haven't already. He was also under the impression that the block was made in response to that one diff, and not after all of the ones preceding it and my discussion with Giano. --bainer (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Those both are somewhat accurate. That user does tend to watchlist the contributions of me and some others, and he likes to show up with no connection to the issue simply to voice his own displeasure at some perceived slight of the distant past. That's either disruption or trolling or uncivil editing by him, and it has gotten him blocked before. It may get him blocked again. N.b. how he says that he has no opinion on the issue. Well, what does he have an opinion about? 3 headings in a row to attack me and Giano. That's flat out, bona fide, cast iron, gilded disruption. I don't know how others feel, but I regard his input as generally ignorable, and so I don't block over things like that. What Giano was saying was pretty accurate: Ideogram has started on the same path that has in the past led to a block. Do, please, check out the history of that user. He's really, really holding a grudge. Geogre 12:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry too much here. Let the Bainer think what he likes. Further comment will own atract unwelcome attention. Giano 12:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Only in case you really didn't understand it: The warning referred to Giano's mocking of Ideogram's mental condition, which he just complained about on the VP. I don't know what your conflict was about, but "that's flat out, bona fide, cast iron, gilded" incivility and deserves a warning. Malc82 13:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Giano isn't doing himself any favors. I AGF'd the thread on WP:VP and was working with Ideogram, and in pops Giano with stalking comments. (a bit of irony there actually). And, now Ideogram, seems to be choosing martyr over resolution. Based on his follow up comments, I'm no longer sure Ideogram was there for advice and resolution, as much as perhaps looking for an ally. Though admittedly it isn't an uncommon psychological response, Ideogram appears to be more interested in making it about others than in looking at what changes he could make to his own behavior. And, unfortunately, Giano isn't doing much better. Lsi john 18:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You're way, way, way late. Ideogram is really, really not interested in resolution. For example, he keeps saying that I won't talk to him, even when I'm talking to him, because, apparently, I'm not going to be talking about him to him. I was at that damned page to talk about whether or not we should host a page about an external site. Ideogram was there to complain about me. The findings of trolling in his behavior are not new. He has been blocked for trolling the same people in the same way. He will be again. At this point, it's just boring. The reason no one is "talking to him" is that he's not talking about the damned issues -- the reason we're all at the page -- but instead talking about how much he doesn't like me and Giano. There are lots of people who don't like me and whom I don't like. I still manage to sleep at night. Geogre 19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How can anyone understand what isn't said? Dude, it looks like an accurate characterization of Ideogram's behavior and maybe even a good idea. Do you think we should block people for vandalism reports of vandalism? Is it a block for "H" for saying that Giano was uncivil? If it's a basic attempt at a genuine description of a person disrupting the project, it's not "incivil." Giano was being accurate. Ideogram is trolling. You're prejudiced in the matter. So what, exactly, is getting gained by templates and more spitting? Waste of time. Utgard Loki 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, warning Giano about incivility is perfectly correct when Giano is being uncivil. ^(H) 14:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh Dear God, has the planet suddenly become the domain of the tiresome Giano 19:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Improved and expanded musings

user:Geogre/IRC considered has two new major findings: "The 'don't be a jerk' phenomenon" and "Echo chamber" to try to explain how a proper point of view gets blamed for "harshing my mellow." I'm sure you will think that it's not stated forcefully enough, but I can't help it. I'm a nice guy. Geogre 19:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

DYFK

Did you friggin' know . . . that Anynobody is now seeking to turn his "brief and concise" AN/I post into a four-way User RfC on everyone he fantasizes about? You are included. --Justanother 00:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That's both amusing and a little disgusting. And, as you say, concise. Very gracious of Anynobody to allow me to post on the admins' noticeboard, but I don't think I'll avail myself of his permission. Oh, dear, I hope people don't just skip over it for being long and dull-looking. I hope people notice it. Hey, people? Bishonen | talk 00:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC).

I especially like the way he took Jossi's offer to help out of context and somehow makes it look nefarious. Which is, of course, my objection to the Orsini sandbox page; it is nothing but that. As I mention on Jossi's page, I love how AN never fails to prove my point for me. --Justanother 00:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh, Jossi closed it. (But I got to to say Meh in context for the first time!!! So not a complete lose.) --Justanother 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

long and dull.. hmmm. i wonder if someone is talking about little editor.. hmmm. /me M Lsi john 02:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

==you here?== Need protection on Evangeline Williamson to stop an obvious edit war by new spa accounts. please. Lsi john 01:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason

I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, demon! Bishonen | talk 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Happy Special Occasion

I made this cake myself, from recipe, and the frosting, and I photographed it myself, and I uploaded it myself, tagged it myself, described it myself, and applied it myself, all for your user talk page. Geogre 18:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) I love it, Geogre! Bishonen

Have a celebratory slice. Geogre 18:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Geogre invited me to take a slice (looks much like a cake I had recently - do you work in Konditor & Cook, Geogre?). Yum.

¡Muchas felicitaciones! Or even Grattis! (surely that can't be right - I hope it doesn't mean "free".. ) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

mmmmmMMMMM! Thanks very much, Geogre, did you really bake it yourself? And who're you calling a tart, mister? [tasting]... fabulous! ALoan, orthography alert, please. "GraTTis" is short for "conGRATulations". Free is "gratis". Here's a multilanguage poem for you:

"Frites betyder inte gratis,

När det gäller stekt potatis."

If you can parse that, I honor you. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Free french fries are better without the skins on the potatoes Lsi john 19:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly repay you Tuesday for a free hamburger today, without fries Lsi john 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Fritos betide ingrates/ Nor that gallic steak 'n taters." Sure. I bakéd myself. It's just a 1-2-3-4 cake (easily done in any system, as it's about the proportions, not the measurements: 1 cup butter, 2 cups sugar, 3 cups flour, 4 eggs (or liters or mililiters or grams), plus 1.5 tsp vanilla, some milk). The frosting is harder (and hardening, as it requires the use of shortening, like all good frostings do). The knife I didn't make, but the cut in the cake I did. Geogre 20:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Sweatheart! - diamonds should always match the colours of your eyes

Viennese fingers for one of the nicest Wikipedians (though still not as nice as the monster)! ElinorD (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday, bish! Looks like we may have to euthanize Kitty due to inactivity. :-)Miranda 08:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I ate too much cake when making this comment. Miranda 09:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pachii Pachii, from moi!! I got around to more chipetting today and am pleased to bring you sure-to-be instant classics such as Munching-on-a-peanut-by-water and Fluffball-chipetting! El_C 02:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just heard it was your birthday today/yesterday - nice to know I share a birthday with you! Hope you had a good one :) Riana (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Then you must help yourself to a slice of cake, and pet a squirrel of your choice, Riana! (But step away from that Hope Diamond ! ) Bishonen | talk 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

• Ok, I've held my fingers long enough: the photo at the top of this page needs a caption: "If I can take this nut back to my nest, I'll eat like a king all winter!" Utgard Loki 12:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Many Happy No Returns (I hope you liked all of your presents!) And here I am a day late and no present. I hope your birthday was wonderful!!!!! KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well... not really. G quit. :-( Bishonen | talk 21:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

A block, if you would

The IP that I am editing from (142.176.46.3) is a shared IP, as I am working in an office building. There have been a few vandalisms from it, and I'd prefer not to just have the IP blocked as a whole. So, I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask, but could you place one of those nifty semi-blocks on it? You know, that one that requires you to log in to edit. Dan 19:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Softblocked for one week. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for the block, I figure the same guys who are vandalizing probably won't make an account, but if they do, the IP will remain unaffected, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lychosis (talk • contribs)

The IP will remain blocked, yep. And if they create accounts, I hope somebody will block, or at least warn, them. (Nobody except CheckUsers has any way of connecting accounts with the IP, so unfortunately I can't keep an eye out for them myself.) Bishonen | talk 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Well, thanks again. I've just really started to try and contribute lately, and I wouldn't have wanted it to be cut short so soon by a complete IP block. Also, my apologies for that previous unsigned comment. Dan 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Heroics

You know, if you look at the bottom of my talk page, you can see an occasion to boldly step into the breach with research skills. Geogre 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A picture to make you smile

Your hooked :) JusticeGuy 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

On RfC conduct et al

I've responded on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I Not Stupid

Hey Bishonen. Sorry for the confusing stuff on Talk:I Not Stupid, and I understand your confusion. The talk page is still open, and comments are still accepted on the most recent GA review. If you go to Talk:I Not Stupid#GA Review (Failed), just click on the edit link and add your comments. That message, "This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it", pertains what is inside the hidden box. If you click "show" on that tan box, it will reveal an archived discussion that took place on a page that is buried in the edit histories of Good Article Review. Again, sorry if it's confusing. It was just my attempt to rescue some important discussion about the article's development and archive it in an accessible place. Hope this helps. Take care! — WiseKwai 19:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I stupid, what can I say? I've posted a comment now, anyway. Probably all the wrong kind for a GA, but, well, there it is. Thanks for showing me how. Bishonen | talk 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

One Night in Hackney

Hi Bishonen, I received a request from ONiH (via email) about deleting his page. Since he had an active block at the time, I didn't feel comfortable doing so at the time, but I reconfirmed it once his block expired, and he confirmed that he still wanted to endorse his "Right to Vanish", so I deleted his pages per Meta's Right to Vanish that stated one of the options was Delete your user and user talk subpages (contact an administrator). Since you've gone ahead and undeleted it, would you mind terribly redeleting it when you're finished reviewing it? I'd love to get ONiH back as an editor, but I think it's going to be some time before he feels he can deal with the amount of stick he got here. SirFozzie 22:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading the Meta Right to Vanish talk page, apparently that's an exclusion (one of those things that I wish was written into the policy, that everyone but me seemed to know (I never get invited to the right meetings, apparently), but no big deal. Thanks for setting me straight :) SirFozzie 22:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict: "exclusion"?) Well, I'm not sure it's appropriate. A user talkpage isn't a "user talk subpage". Check out the principle as laid out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userpage#How_do_I_delete_my_user_and_user_talk_pages.3F . Were there grievous legal threats or something? It's not that I want to make problems for the user, but he probably doesn't know talkpages are considered special in this regard. Wait a second, I'll blank it. ... ok, there. And finally, as you'll have seen, Iamunknown is reviewing it also. I think I'll leave it blanked with an undeleted history while I think about it a little. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

No, no legal threats, just he happened to edit on a very contentious subject (Northern Ireland), and ran into a lot of edit wars, commonly targeted for comments like "Who cares about the viewpoint of folks who support terrorists" (that only got a warning from the admin who blocked him for calling someone who was blocked for vandalism a vandal), and the such, and it got to be a bit too much for him, and he had a tendency to be blunt and give back as good as he got. As for the other part, no big deal, if it needs to stay undeleted, it can stay undeleted. SirFozzie 22:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

He has emailed me again, requesting it be redeleted and cited | this as justification it can be deleted, but I will not undelete it. Perhaps we could move the username or something similar? SirFozzie 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As you are looking into this, you have probably seen the dialogue that preceded it, the two threads (now archived) at User_talk:Tyrenius/Archive6#ONIH. This thread is pertinent: User_talk:John#What.27s_going_to_happen_next.3F. Tyrenius 05:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Bishonen! Firstly, please allow me to apologise for unilaterally undoing your recent admin action (re-deleting ONIH's talk page) without prior consultation. You certainly deserve this professional courtesy and I am certainly in the wrong for not extending it. It's a bit difficult for me to cite policies and such in conversation, as I much prefer simply talking directly. ONIH has been a terrific help to our project, but unfortunately he's recently been in a bit of a situation and has apparently become a bit jaded with the project and has chosen to leave. It's proper that we respect his wishes with regards to "his" userspace, isn't it? Perhaps I'm just a bit daft, but it seems quite reasonable to me, hehe. Again, apologies for not discussing this with you first. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 08:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That would have been useful, yeah. I'm just talking with ONiH. Oh, well, the hell with it. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

I Not Stupid

Great identification of the central problems. Although there isn't much wrong with what's actually there, a good amount needs to be added. I didn't have the time to thoroughly review the article as you did (due to prior engagements on Wikipedia of my own), but I believe the editors of I Not Stupid will be content with your wonderful analysis. Regards, NSR77 ^T_C 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

New chipetting!

~100+ new images added; enjoy! El_C 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude! Put on some pants! This is not one of those sorts of websites. At least bring back the young lady with the really attractive shoulders and neck. Geogre 18:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you hate pants? [shoulders and neck, that was tactful!] El_C 18:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In one of ths shots, I got bird and chippy in the same frame (water). I'm pretty proud of that one. El_C 18:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

! It's just a Cardinal, and a male cardinal, at that. I was expecting...you know... a bird and a chippie. Oh, well, cardinals I've got, and lots of 'em. House finches, too, although I'd gladly shoot a few dozen, and the coolest bird with the worst song, the Black capped chickadee. (Carolina chickadees are even cuter.) It's the other sort of bird I'm lacking. (And she did have very nice shoulders and arms.) Geogre 20:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone can see about the cutest little boid in the woild, here it is. It's about the size of a chipmunk, so the stripey little rodent actually could stalk one. ("When you say Carolina/ Say North Carolina/ When you say North Carolina/ Say U-N-C" is a fooball cheer up in the Tarheel state.)

A Carolina Chickadee says, when it says 'Carolina,' U-N-C.

Thank you

for your help. I hope everything is defused, at least for now.  :) --Iamunknown 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Most cunning plan

Giano cruises below the surface not taking the bait.

...to lure Giano back, but I think you'll have to be even more wily than that. Perhaps me comparing him to a fish will help. Yomangani^talk 22:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps comparing the nibbling forces to krill would do it? Ah, but I must be stopped, as satire is surely some kind of meanness, as we all found out with Giano. I think every citizen of the English speaking world should have to read Dunciad and Bickerstaffe papers, just so they can begin to understand the difference between satire ("lash the vice, not the man") and insult. An insult is easily dismissed with a "says you," but a satire gets at the heart of the problem: obnoxious behaviors. Geogre 02:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin

I wish you and other admins could do something about User:Arthur Rubin abusing his admin status. He was edit warring over domain kiting with me in the past, and then immediately went to threaten to block *me* for edit warring when he was just as guilty (and moreso in that case) of edit warring on that article. Of course when I pointed that out he threatened to block me (and I think even *did* block me) for "incivility" because it was "uncivil" of me to point out that he was breaking policy (all while he accused me of breaking policy and didn't seem to think that was uncivil of him). And of course I was right in that conflict and eventually the domain kiting article was kept as a forward to domain tasting just as I had always said it should, and he has been looking for other things to try to threaten me over ever since.

Problem is he is now threatening all the exact same nonsense over photo editing -- where he is actively edit warring there to revert to an old version and then puts threats on my talk page and again is threatening blocks for the civility thing when I told him he should not be giving out warnings to me considering his past history. He also threatened in the past over Adobe Photoshop and Photoshopping, both of which the eidts he opposed did prevail in the end. Now he seems to be making a stand months later at photo editing, which is a conflict over the exact same issue resolved in earlier disputes.

I've also seen the same admin abusing his power in conflict with other editors. He's clearly someone who needs some looking at, and I had to have several people warn him off after the domain kiting incident, where he was STILL threatening to block me unless I reverted back to the version *he* wanted even *after* multiple people told him he was wrong. DreamGuy 03:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Diffs would help me take a look, DG. For the last paragraph, at least, please. Bishonen | talk 08:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC).

Awww crap

Bishonen, I may have just inadvertently broken my promise to you. Though the promise did not specifically include WP:CSN, and was related to 'filing frivolous complaints' against the foursome, it is possible that I have broken the spirit of my promise and that would not be acceptable to me.

My post was more of a 'response to the situation' at CSN, than the AN/I posts which prompted your involvment in the first place. It was not until a moment ago that it occured to me that the post could conflict with my promise.

If you feel that I have broken my promise, I will redact the post and apologize to all parties.

Grrrr. I'm a bit frustrated with my self right now. Peace in God. Lsi john 18:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No no. Not at all. No reason why you wouldn't post at WP:CSN in response, as you say, to the ongoing situation. That's not the kind of thing I had in mind when I tried to broker a peace. And Anynobody's refusal to cooperate made the whole thing moot from the start anyway. Bishonen | talk 18:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC).

Thank you. Though, I am still chagrined for not thinking to ask you before I posted.

It turns out that it may be a moot point anyway, as Durova has deleted the entire thread, in contradiction to her previous rulings in two prior threads. I've asked her for clarification. This is a difficult wikibreak, could you 'block' me for a couple days (at my request), to help me stay 'breaked'? Lsi john 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidents?

Hello Bishonen, I understand that you think I am not trying to cooperate with your attempts at brokering peace. However as I said when you first broached your proposal, I haven't been doing the actions you were proposing. I asked for proof that I was then and you were unable (or unwilling) to provide anything beyond one diff which I was able to explain:

Bishonen's proof and my response.

Your proposal, related to me, was stop posting to Justanother's/Lsi john's talk pages needlessly as well as not excessively posting to the Administrator noticeboards (which I assumed you meant to include all of the boards, ANI, 3RR, etc.)

Could you please cite any incident(s) of my behavior which you believe show actions on my part that your proposal would have corrected, and then show examples of how I made the proposal moot? As I said then, I wasn't doing those things then and I'm not doing them now. I don't mean to imply that there is no way I could have wrecked your proposal, I simply want you to show how I did it. Anynobody 21:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, if you remember, I went out of my way at the beginning of our acquaintance to extend an assumption of good faith to you. That's over. You recklessly squandered my good will. It's gone. There will be no more citing of incidents or examples, or engaging with your claim that you've been "able to explain" stuff. (To your own satisfaction, perhaps you have.) Been there, and a bleak, depressing waste of time it was. Don't post on my page any more, please. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC).

Hi

Hey, Bish. What do you think of this edit? I thought it was about the only thing I could do given the totally unsourced WP:BLP nature of the page. Not that I doubt the veracity but it needs sourcing! --Justanother 20:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)