User talk:Bunchofgrapes/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive. If you want to continue a conversation here, do me a favor and cut and paste it to my main talk page, ok?


For the benefit of the wider world and those such as myself, could you confirm, as seems to be the case, that this has all started because you protected a user talk page? Tyrenius 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You would have to ask User:MSTCrow. That is my best guess. It could also be because I am seen as a sympathizer for the well-known abusive admin Bishonen. ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It is quite poignant to imagine the poor man's disappointment at finding me not listed on the recall page, yes. Hey, BoG, I'll help you ignore MSTCrow. Watch the space below.

You see? That was me ignoring the user. Am I better at it than Lar, or what? Bishonen | talk 23:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC).
Ignoring what now? Look what I made! An article for a theatre that was only around for 2 1/2 years. And With ALoan AWOL, somebody needs to copyedit it for me... and fix the glaring errors. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Why do you have a (new) picture of William D'Avenant with a caption saying that it's about Thomas Killigrew's company? Geogre 11:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm? No, that's Killigrew with a good dog, surely. Compare Image:Thomas Killigrew.jpg, same guy 15 years younger. See the nose? No syphilis. What makes you think it's Davenant? Bunch, it's a real purty article, a gem! Bishonen | talk 13:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Removing suspected sock tag[edit]

User:DTC who some suspect of being a sock of User:RJII has been removing the tag on their userpage that says they are suspected of being a sock. I don't know if they are or not (although they do seem quite similar to RJII). What I want to know is, what is the policy regarding removing such notices? Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 07:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to Irresistible on my page, Grappa. If you have input, all the better. Bishonen | talk 08:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC).
I agree with what Bish said, Immoveable; those tags are rarely worth fighting over, not until the case is all but proven. I'd neither apply nor fight over even the "suspected" ones unless if I would be very surprised if it wasn't true. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My art[edit]

You do realise that if I had not been stupid to release that into the public domain it would probably be more valuable than an Andy Warhol Giano | talk 22:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It reminds me of some really nice flight simulators. From 1992 or so. I faint with delight! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Size of London[edit]

Please name one or two of those fine-looking sources. Did you happen to see the figure 80,000 anywhere? Or 300,000? Any figure? Bishonen | talk 00:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC).

  • [1] Sheppard, Francis (1998). London: A History. Oxford University Press. p. 37: "The wall enclosed an area of some 133 hectares (330 acres). This was a far larger area than any other Roman town in Britain..."
  • [2] Russo, Daniel G. (1998). Town Origins and Development in Early England, c. 400-950 A.D. Greenwood Press. p 115: "London was enclosed for the first time by a great stone wall build around the three landward-facing sides of the town (c.200). Constructed of large ragstones, flints, and mortar, with interval towers and gate houses, it stood twenty-one feet high and eight feet thick, enclosing an area of about 330 acres."
I hadn't looked for population figures; nor (obviously) are these two sources talking about 1666 London. I'll see what I can find later. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I got nothing. Any population figures are all guesswork anyway (unlike something tangible like the question of area within the Roman Wall), so I'd go with whatever the book in front of you says. If you have two books, and they don't say the same, go with a range. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Right. Thank you. Hmmm... "Google books", whazzat? Lessee, any full-view diary of John Evelyn? Ha ha, yes! Learn something every day.

SFriendly.gif Bishonen | talk 13:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC).

Oh, a person could look at Augustan literature and Restoration literature, as I have a feeling one of them talked about population growth and cited a source for the population growth from 1630-1690. That would be a ballpark, anyway. </whistles "Lillalullaberoo"> Geogre 13:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Augustan literature cites this web page, from the "Millwall History Files", a site, uh, focusing on "The Story of Millwall Football Club concentrating on the period since Early 1980's". The page is question appears well-done -- I'm not sure if it is original content or taken from elsewhere -- but I can't really call it an RS. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Not that seeming RS's are particularly R, huh? That's some scandalously out-of-context Pepys-quoting there, isn't it? Why not credit him with inventing the Parmazan cheese, while he's at it? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Colorful Detail, my good man, and merely hinted at, too. Watch me not even even mention how he found on returning after the Fire that the cheese had taken the form of a big subterranean fondue. They all broke out their baguettes and special Swiss fondue forks. Bishonen | talk 17:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC).
Don't be ridiculous, in October 1667 Pepys had an inspiration and invented the fondue fork. It's how the British nearly defeated the Dutch. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Ok that. I am behind Auckland university's proxy server. Hence it adds that '' thing . Please do not consider it as vandalism. --Ageo020 22:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you put my Rfa vote back as well. Thanks --Ageo020 22:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't believe it was intentional vandalism. I will go to the work of putting it back; you should cease editing from behind a strangely misconfigured proxy. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 24 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gibbon's Tennis Court, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Blnguyen | rant-line 06:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm startng to notice that Restoration tennis-court theatre articles, even when on the front page, don't attract much attention. Come on! Nothing's more interesting than a Restoration tennis-court theatre, am I right? Hello? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
If you will insist on writing them when people are away... -- ALoan (Talk) 22:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Step away from the computer, vacationing citizen! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My edit summary idea[edit]

Thanks for your note on my talk about my offhand comment regarding configuring Preferences so as to prompt for edit summaries when not initially entered. You wrote:

The idea has its drawbacks. Take a hypothetical individual that would not have, without this coaxing, entered an edit summary. He'll do one of several things:
1. Prodded by the message, he will enter a good edit summary
2. He will enter "skjfsda" or the equivalent, and be annoyed.
3. He will be so annoyed that he will enter "I hate edit summaries".
4.He will be so incredibly annoyed that he won't contribute at all.
I won't venture to be able to accurately assign probabilities to these outcomes, though I would predict that #1 wouldn't outnumber 2, 3, and 4 combined. 2, 3, and 4 are all bad outcomes, I think. (Especially 3, soon we'd have people slapping warning templates on pages about it, and fighting about whether they can be removed, etc. etc.)

Having thought about this some, I suppose you are right that my suggestion is not an unambiguously good idea. Still, I think it could be done in a way that would eliminate 95% of the bad outcomes above. I would set up the "no edit summary warning to read something like this"

Would you like to enter a short Edit Summary of your contribution to Wikipedia? (Link to What is this?)
[ ] Yes Enter edit summary here:_________________
[ ] No Please post my contribution without a summary

Given these choices, I think the bad outcomes are all unlikely. It will be a lot easier for an "annoyed" user to click "No" than to type in "I hate edit summaries" so option 3 will be unlikely. I also find it unlikely that a serious contributor would forget the contribution rather than have the trouble of merely clicking "No" so option 4 would be unlikely. And vandals would have already had the opportunity to input a garbage edit summary before even hitting this page, so option 2 should also be unlikely (and an edit summary of "xzskdfkjafe" probably presages a contribution of equal value so seeing it might actually be helpful to RC patrollers).

And we would then know that a decision not to leave an edit summary was intentional, thereby avoiding RfA opposed based on "only 80% edit summary usage" for long-term contributors who are just a little over-eager to hit "Save Page."

Anyway, that's my reaction. But I still don't know where or whether to post the idea to see if it gets any wider support. Thanks for paying attention, anyway. I guess I won't sign that recall petition after all. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea w/ the Yes/No choice. I think, though, that to eliminate the bad outcomes, you would also need a "don't ask me again" checkbox; otherwise, after the fifth or sixth time you get the confirmation question, the frustration would really start to build up. But saving the "don't ask again state" would be problematic, because we couldn't do it for anons... still, that sort of thing might work. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Any idea where one could take this idea to? ANI, village pump, ...? Newyorkbrad 16:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the village pumps would be most appropriate. Be warned thatthis would take developer time, so unless people agree the benefit is quite significant, it probably won't happen. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to your userpage[edit]

You'll want to revert your userpage. I almost posted to ANI that there was a problem with anons blocking admins before I figured it must just be some kind of joke. The edit summary was "take that!" Newyorkbrad 16:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, meet User:EddieSegoura; EddieSegoua, Newyorkbrad. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, already reverted by someone else. I would have reverted it myself but I was under some kind of illusion that I couldn't edit someone else's userpage. Newyorkbrad 16:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking User:Nobugs[edit]

Well done. He certainly seemed Eddieish to me. He was doing an odd thing I haven't noticed before; creating user pages for impostor/doppleganger accounts that had never been created. User:Dvorfygirl, User:Wily Mo Wheels, see my deletion log for August 24, 2006 for the rest of them. The particular account names he made up are somewhat interesting: Dvortygirl is an admin in Wiktionary who did a lot to fend off the Exic*rnt vandal, Wily Mo Peña is a Red Sox player. I guess if we see someone doing this stuff again, we'll know who it is. FreplySpang 16:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

He's fascinated with sockpuppet, impersonation, and doppelganger tags of all stripes. I've seen him create accounts with names like those before, but I admit I can't recall him creating userpages for non-existent users before. Perhaps his IP had used up its allocation of new-accounts-per-day already, or perhaps he just thought of a different way to be disruptive. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to user page vandalize pages like you did on User:Nc817, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Wow! I will!? And you're the Queen of England, Eddie. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because you're abusing the extra features. You can't block someone just because you're suspicious. Even sysop user can get blocked if they misbehave. What are you trying to accomplish by creating those tagged userpages anyway? Nobugs 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You're a banned user, Eddie. If I was strongly suspicious when I blocked Nobugs, your vandalism spree immediately after completly confirmed it. You are wasting your own time and ours by continuing to try to edit. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and Eddie - I got your mail (from an account with the EddieSegoura name -- gee, it is you!). It is well past the point of me convincing others that you are not welcome. You are banned by the community, for long-term vandalism and trolling. Read WP:BAN for what that means. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No I'm not, I will keep editing, whether you like it or not, now just leave me alone. If you continue to fight I will have no choice but to defend myself -- User:Eddie segoura

anarchism article[edit]

Bunchofgrapes, thanks for your concerns. As far as my edits on talk:Anarchism go, well hardly anyone ever cites their sources on this (or most) talk pages. If you look over the edits you will see this. Also, there are three or four other editors who agree with me on most of my points.
Here are my edits on the article Anarchism:
I only have one edit that should have had a reference but didn't. I apologize, I should have referenced (my ideology change) edit. However, there are many unsourced statements in this article and the large majority of them have not been made by me. Further, innumerable Wikipedia articles are teeming with unsourced statements and they, too, have been made by thousands of editors who are not me. I will be more careful in future to source my contributions so you or Ungovernable Force will not think that I don't belong here at Wikipedia. I have no control over the ticklishness of the anarchist editors and don't understand it's relevance. If they are ticklish maybe they should toughen up. So far I have no problem at all with User:DTC or User:That'sHot and we get along fine. Have a wonderful evening. Whiskey Rebellion 03:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Green Lantern Vandalism[edit]

Obviously it's on a daily basis. Is there any background on it? Is it one person, or a group? Is some statement trying to be made? Thanks for any help. Rsm99833 03:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea; earlier today (ok, yesterday, UTC-wise) was the first time I've come across it. I think I got alerted to it via WP:AIV. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I've seen it over the past couple of weeks. Just in the past few days has it seem to escalate. If you ever get any background, please let me know. Have a good weekend!Rsm99833 04:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you see this?[edit]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bunchofgrapes. --LambiamTalk 07:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. A pain-in-the-ass vandal kept recreating it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

ISP fixed, now...[edit]

Now that my ISP is fixed for the time being, I can now give you a proper award. Martial Law 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Vitruvian Barnstar.png The da Vinci Barnstar
This is to award your efforts to make Wikipedia a better place, and especially for your valued assisstance, patience to me many times. Martial Law 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, you deserve the award. See you around Bunch Of Grapes. Martial Law 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA and your comments about my policy opinions[edit]

Hi, I feel I did not explain myself well regarding polls are evil. I have replied to your !vote but I dont know if you missed it or not. I wonder if you would mind discussing this further on my RfA talk page so that I can get some more views and discuss our ideas. I have asked other users to chip in to and would be obliged if you could pop in and have your say. Thanks --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


You are still banned, Eddie. The reasons for your ban had nothing to do with sockpuppet tags. You are not welcome to edit. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't agree with that. Only the arbitration committee can impose long-term bans on editors and this never happened. In this case, User:Essjay suggested something be done and you come together with other users to talk about me about the redirect pages to Crossover (rail). Hopefully we can work on this as well. --Eddie 20:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. Go read WP:BAN. "Decision to Ban. Source 1: The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself.". If you want to appeal your ban, you may do so by contacting the Arbitatration Committee or Jimbo Wales. Good luck with that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels 2[edit]

I decided to go along with the consensus on that MFD; I felt it was better to do this. I don't want to get into arguments with anyone here! --TheM62Manchester 23:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you were at least partly swayed by the reasoning behind the discussion. If you still feel you are right, you shouldn't change your stance, but try one more time to explain your reasoning. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I was partly swayed by the reasoning, yes; and I don't want to upset other Wikipedians, either. Anyway, you are a good admin; you've dealt better than me with the EddieSegoura situation! --TheM62Manchester 23:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, M62, I really appreciate that! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Glad you like it. See the WP:ANI thread on EddieSegoura; I have a solution regarding Exicornt trolling. --TheM62Manchester 23:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Somehow I doubt moving it to BJAODN would really solve it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A misguided attempt by me to solve it, but I did try! Anyhow... keep up the good work! --TheM62Manchester 00:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Then again... Maybe you're a genius, M62. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I decided it should be deleted from here, I can't see a reason to keep it. --TheM62Manchester 22:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Decided what should be deleted? Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels, or the content added in that edit in BJAODN I linked to there? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The LTA page itself; I think the WoW page is redudnant now. --TheM62Manchester 23:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Glad to hear it! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:2006 Boston Massacre[edit]

I was also confused by those two edits on Talk:2006 Boston Massacre. My guess was an alternate user account? I left a message on both accounts' talk pages... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


You are the newest addition to my amusing quotes on my userpage (from ANI about Courtney). Cheers! Syrthiss 12:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Exxxxxcellent. Glad to see my juvenile humor didn't go unappreciated. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Linkie? Inquiring (and lazy) people want to know. So far my mentorship has been uneventful :) ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You could just go look at Syrthiss' user page. The funny bit was in this edit. I was by coincidence just now checking up on how that mentoring was going --- yeah, uneventful. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
SAID I was lazy! ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


A Barnstar!
Administrative cookie

For your outstanding efforts in eliminating the backlog at WP:AIV, I, Ryūlóng, award you a cookie.--Ryūlóng 04:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I take orders well, once in a while. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Drive-by recall[edit]

Drive-by recall is over? I think of recall as a lazy man's RFC. One user makes a request and then walks away with out needing to write out a formal request and get it certified. Makes other people organize the thing. Do you know if there were others after yours that I missed? FloNight 22:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, there weren't -- I remain the first and only recall "survivor", at least that I know of. Not that it would have bothered me to re-RfA... if the thought of that bothered me, I wouldn't be in the category :-) Probably a recall done in such a lazy a manner as this one doesn't have much chance of success, anyway, so the drive-by factor is mitigated. And let's face it, the two recalls we've had so far have both been a lot more collegial than a typical user RfC. FWIW, MSTCrow did, a couple days later, come back and offer up the two crimes I had committed, one ex post facto... the whole thing is preserved here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good one[edit]

Yesh. Good. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

Soon we'll be wearing gold-plated diapers. That image, even though it is fair-use, is one of Wikipedia's two most essential. The other -- need I even say? -- is of course Image:Xenu space plane.jpg. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox[edit]

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is placed on Probation and personal attack parole for one year.

Jim62sch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Reporting Vandalism by Ambystom01[edit]

The only edits that Ambystom01 seems to have done were all vandalism about this Kwarkru nonsense. See Special:Contributions/Ambystom01. Since you reverted the user's Cheese nonsense, I think it appropriate that you add another warning on the Talk page. Merope added the comments for me after I reverted the vandalism on Oldest people.

My apologies if I am stepping on some etiquette here; I'm still learning the ropes.

TIA -- Eliyahu S Talk 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they have gotten enough warnings -- I've blocked them. Thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I wouldn't have taken it upon myself to make that call, but I agree. I guess that's what separates administrators from newbies! -- 10:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Must have timed out before I committed the changes. It was me. :) -- Eliyahu S Talk 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Saw your RFCU regarding this user and remembered seeing the name before. Here's a diff from Consumed Crustacean's RFA where Quarl brings up some other oddities regarding Axiomm. I didn't know if you wanted to add that or not to your RFCU. Do you think I should bring this up on the talk of Carnildo's RFA as well (as Axiomm has participated) or wait for results? Syrthiss 16:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a note to the RfA. And to the RFCU. Thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Sheesh. I didn't know I was dealing with Eddie (it's been a while for sure). I should've guessed with Tropical Storm Florence (2006) though. – Chacor 16:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup :-) Lucky you, NSL..Chacor, I wish it had been a while for me. Did you know you had him with User:Rama's car and the Hurricane Ernesto (2006) moves too? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I sorta figured after a while. It has indeed been a while, I guess I'll just have to keep an eye out then. – Chacor 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:BaseballFan830/2006 Boston Massacre[edit]

Just to let you know. Ryūlóng 22:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted; thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


I don't know where I got that impression that you hadn't talked to Kylu. I struck my comment. Syrthiss 15:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw. Thank you :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like your advice[edit]

You've stepped into the quagmire of the anarchism articles before: perhaps you've seen my reporting DTC on WP:AN3 here and WP:AN/I here, both cases so subtle that no admin has wet their toes in them. That's the problem. DTC is, in my estimation, the most dangerous type of disruption we can have on Wiki: a dedicated, single-minded user with a lot of free time and a volumnious library of printed sources all in service of a partisan POV. He's too smart to do something obviously vandalistic (even his 3RR violation wasn't obvious, but is clear upon reflection if one compares the first and last versions he reverts to) and can play at all the weaknesses of something like Wikipedia, especially the difficulty of recognising non-obvious vandalism. His edit-warring, excarbated by the well-intended efforts of an uninterested administration (another Wiki weakness) has driven off AaronS. He's almost certainly a RJII sockpuppet - I suspect That'sHot is the same guy as well. I want him to stop aggressively misrepresenting sources, loading the article with ones amiable to his view and dismissing or stripping those not. I've tried to play nice, but he brushes it off - I've tried to bring this through the proper channels, but nobody wants to give the case the attention it deserves: what am I supposed to do? --GoodIntentionstalk 05:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

First, let me again emphasisize, as I did with TheUngovernableForce, that I have no idea at all about the content question here and for all I know the pro-anarcho-capitalist sides are right and the topic *is* under-represented or belittled. Or not. How would I know? Other than the obvious approaches like suggesting a CheckUser or compiling enough evidence to go to ArbCom, the only thing I can really suggest is that you make sure everything your side asserts is backed by scholarly sources too. If one side is arguing backed by a voluminous library, and the other is backed by -- for example -- talking about what the Expedia article on Anarchism says, the guy with the library probably should win. Of course, ideally, you wouldn't have sides, you'd all be doing your best to fairly cover all aspects of the topic as best you could... but it's a politics article, and I suppose people interested in politics articles are inherently political, aren't they? Ugh. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about the content dispute, though you can imagine the trouble I have convincing people of that. My problem is that he strips the article of scholarly sources of the opposing view as much as he can. He unilaterally acts in a way misrepresenting these sources. Then he claims his view is the scholarly consensus, when it is not - it is a highly disputed view, and if there is a meaningful consensus any way it is opposite to his view. I don't now have the access to the type of specialised library he does, nor do I have the time to devote to cheerleading my favourite ideology: look at Special:Contributions/DTC - it's all that he has done. I find it very worrying that the only way to stop people like this is if they do something stupid - if That'sHot is his sockpuppet. And when they wise up - this kid is already smart enough to make his edits appear legitimate to the uninterested viewer - what do we do then? --GoodIntentionstalk 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

London, England[edit]

I noticed your rollback on Buckingham Palace - I had noticed a similar edit on Nonsuch Palace. I think someone with one of those changing IPs has been going through Category:Royal_residences_in_the_United_Kingdom or a related category - look at the related changes. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oy. Adding the context on *some* of those pages seems OK to my American eye, and on others, stupid overkill -- how I hate those who go through making sweeping changes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

BoG Hi![edit]

Good evening BoG, or is it morning? Just looked in to see what is new [3] Amazing what you can delete from your page and I can't? I'm almost "disappointed" Giano | talk 23:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for admin attention[edit]

I'm requesting some Wikipedia administrators to communicate with a user, Aeusoes1, who is causing some problems for the Hawaiian phonology article. Please look at the article's talk page, section "Edits by AEuSoes1", especially "Edit 3". If it's appropriate, in your opinion, please consider a temporary block for that user. Otherwise, perhaps you can reason with him. Thanks. Agent X 16:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreal Engine technology[edit]

I've been attempting to edit this article, per Talk:Unreal Engine technology#unannounced_titles, and User:Unico master 15 keeps reverting without stated cause. Whilst I'll acknowledge possible counterarguments to my reasoning to remove what I've removed, I have provided what seem to me to be quite plausible and policy-based arguments. Further, I have repeatedly, over the course of several days, attempted directly to contact this user: User_talk:Unico_master_15#Your_UE_article_revert. In response, as noted, I've seen absolutely no response save the reverts noted in the UE article talk page section. This doesn't seem worthy of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard yet. How should I proceed? Nysin 17:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have left him a message and put the page on my watchlist. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It appears to have been thus far successful. Nysin 20:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

wrong address[edit]

Today I recieved this message:

"All right, stop bothering people with inane questions or comments on their talk pages please. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. Geogre 02:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)"

You must be confusing me with someone else, as I have never participated on this site's message boards.

Mczech1111 18:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That was at User talk:, right? As the message in the big box on that talk page says, "This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users." So don't worry about it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP etc.[edit]

Thanks for the comments; that was very helpful, particularly the distinction between calling for assistance with WP:V and WP:NPOV issues. I particularly like your suggestion that the parties agree that both WikiProjects be notified of future requests for more editors. I will make that suggestion to the participants at some point, when (if!) things cool down a bit. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Re Democratic Republic of Congo[edit]

You don't appear to be the author?... nor do I understand why that isn't a useful redirect...

Oops – apologies for mistake and thanks for spotting!  Best wishes, David Kernow 03:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

IP address[edit]

OK. Thanks for the information.Mczech1111 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Do you have a problem? 18:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Anything specific you have in mind? I don't seem to have any mail. (My idiot email provider seems more than willing to randomly filter out real messages, though, so that doesn't seem to mean much lately :-( )—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Send me an e-mail, and all your e-mail woes can be banishéd. Geogre 11:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Your wikipedia mail is non-functional, Geogre, and I've lost your address, though I've emailed Bishonen for it or you could try mailing me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It is? Oh. So that's why it's been so quiet. I'll turn it on or correct it or whatever it is that I have to do. Still, your e-mail woes should be a thing of the past now anyhow. Geogre 16:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

An invitation[edit]

I noticed before that you live in Oregon and wanted to send you this to consider Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle4. I know it is a long trip for a kind of low-key get together, and it is by now short notice, but you would certainly be welcome. DVD+ R/W 21:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the invite -- I hadn't noticed the upcoming Seattle meetup -- but you're right, long trip. I'm holding out for a Portland meetup. And an inflow of people more attractive than those I usually see in those meetup pictures. Wait, did I type that out loud? ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano blocking controversy[edit]

I just wanted to say that, although I supported Kylu's block and disagreed with your unblocking, I'm now worried that you may be bruised by the experience of the last few days. I don't think I said anything actually uncivil, but I do apologise if anything seemed harsh - obviously you acted in good faith, believed you were doing the right thing, and had quite a lot of support. This hasn't been easy. It's a pity that so many good people have suffered grief over this mess. Hopefully, it will soon be confirmed that Carnildo's latest RfA has failed, and that will be the end of it. Metamagician3000 01:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know if I actually said it, or thought I said it, but I agreed with your unblocking for the reasons stated. In other words, you did the hard stuff of researching the timing, and I think you were right to indict Kylu's block. I haven't the vaguest idea whether Kylu had bad intent or not, and I don't think you said, either, but you were right that the timing was suspicious and poor enough that the block itself was a clear lift. I was on my "let's not say anything" approach, though, hoping that silence would be an example for the world. It wasn't. (The avant garde band Pere Ubu broke up, they said, because there are too many bands in the world. They said that therefore they would lead by example. However, none of the other bands broke up, so they reformed.) Geogre 11:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks Geogre; I should note that I completely reject the idea that Kylu's block had bad intent behind it; just the over-eagerness to DO SOMETHING that I think affects many "refereeing" admins at one time or another. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I see you are not arownd at the moment, I hope it is because you have toothache (well I don't hope you have toothache) but what I mean have a practical reason for not editing, rather than are pissed off with the project, which needs you and your sort. BoG, I'm sorry I had a snap at you, I shouldn't have, when you were really trying to help me out, I just saw Kylu's dumb attempt at humour on your page and saw (is that the right saw?) red for an hour. So I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. It all seems a bit dumb and petty now doesn't it? Who cares what they all do and say and do etc, it's not as though it is real life, Carnildo is not actually running for president. I'm turning Wikipedia off for a while now as when I see some people's comments I just can't help choking, spluttering and hitting save, and it's started to make my throat sore, not to mention the mouse is getting a little indented with the pressure of my click. While I'm gone have a read through my FAs and see how many incongruous mentions of sanitary fittings you can find and remove them. My email is still checked but I won't be looking in here, see you in a while. Take care. Giano | talk 12:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • OK Giano, worry not, it has not sent me running from the project and in fact I did have a not-a-toothache. I was in Eugene, Oregon all day, with no computer in sight. I hope you come back soon. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think Carnildo is worth so much talking about. Forget about his circus show and move on to editing. Period. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it is nice to get a bit of attention like this, even if I was simply out of town visiting dear old Mom. Still catching up a little. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there you are, good! Bishonen | talk 15:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC).
Whooops -- sorry about the blanking. I'm just waking up this morning and was only trying to change the wallpaper! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's HW[edit]

I know who I am. I've already posted it on Talk:Cool (song). I choose not to create an account because I'm not editing here on a daily basis anymore. Plus, as long as you know who I am, I'm not going to have the time of my day. Now please leave me alone; I don't want to interact with you or Bishonen — who I'm sure is nearby or ready to talk about me — at all.

By the way, it's HW. EE is still schooling. 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)