User talk:Bunchofgrapes/Archive 9

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

This is an archive. Editing it will break the fifth seal.

Question: Articles for Deletion[edit]

You made this nomination for Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory, and though I posted the article and love it as my child, I agree that it's reasonable to consider deleting it. But the tag on the article says it's being considered for deletion under Wikipedia's Deletion policy. I've searched that policy and found nothing at all about notability. Am I looking in the wrong place, does the policy need to be updated, is it the wrong tag, did I write the article with a non-neutral point of view, do administrators have plenary power that transcends the written rules, or ????. (I vote for expanding the policy to more clearly include non-notability.)

And by the way, the notability article doesn't mention non-notable ideas by notable people. (I'm not complaining, and not defending the Raccoon—just pointing out something that might possibly need to be fixed.) Lou Sander 13:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Very long answer here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the very long answer, and for the information contained therein. Both are worthwhile, and I thank you again. I have two points in reply:
1) I didn't originally make the connection between your "One 'theory' from one Ann Coulter book; not inherently notable." and the policy's "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" (I hope you can see how a newcomer could miss that connection). Now I see the connection and I agree that the policy's words apply to the Raccoon article.
I also now understand the taboo nature of defining "notability," but I'm still not excited that neither the AfD tag nor the proposer's words were very specific about the reason for the AfD recommendation. Since similar things are "brought up (so) often at AfD," I'm thinking that I'm not the only one who is confused about this. Others are possibly disturbed, upset, pissed off, apoplectic, etc. My hope would be that he/she who proposes deletion on the grounds of notability or one of the non-obvious reasons buried in the fine print of the policy would also supply some sort of more specific justification. For the Raccoon, "Minor topic that doesn't deserve its own article" would, IMHO, have sufficed. It would also have avoided any reader's ill-grounded inference that the proposer had any opinions or points of view about the controversial and inflammatory Ms. Coulter (or her work). (And by the way, the first words of the Raccoon article state that it's a "fanciful concept," and not a real "theory." I was pretty careful to put that in, but many readers seem to have missed it.)
2) You said: Lack of "notability" very, very often corresponds with violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No Original Research. I think this is a serious problem (emphasis mine) with your article too, in fact, and I really would ask you to read those two policies carefully. I believe the following portion of your article is unverifiable Original Research:
The imagine, perhaps and might, italicized by Coulter for emphasis, refer to what she believes is the speculative, mythical, "made-up-story" nature of the theory that species evolved through random mutation and selection.
The "fundamentalist Christian nut" material refers to what she believes is the tendency of evolutionists (to her, an intolerant religious cult) to respond to criticism by name-calling. Her book presents examples of that tendency.
This is, I think, your description or interpretation of what Coulter means, right? (emphasis mine)
I say: Balderdash, sir, balderdash! (emphasis mine) ;- ) The source of the quoted material is a notable book from a reliable publisher, and the article links to the Wikipedia article about that book. The non-quoted material is my fair summarization (or at least I hope it is fair) of extensive material in the 20-page chapter of which the Raccoon quote is an epigrammatic summary. In that chapter, the author gives clear and explicit explanations for the words she italicized in the quotation.
I didn't want to include bulky material from the chapter, or numerous references to specific pages in the book (which most readers probably don't own or haven't read, any more than they own or have recently read Origin of Species). If it's "original research" to edit/distill a chapter for brevity, while retaining the meanings of words and phrases the author explicitly defines in that chapter, I'm guilty.
And if I'm guilty, then I've got to say that those are pretty tortured interpretations of the words "serious problem" and "original research," especially when the latter formerly meant the research of "physics cranks." (And BTW, I did re-read the policies. Thanks for the suggestion.)
I've edited the article to lessen the air of original research. Lou Sander 20:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough regarding my original research suspicions: although there is still an interpretive element in summarizing pages worth of material, I admit it is minimal and that it is a commonplace practice to do so. I didn't suspect that Coulter actually spent time syntactically analyzing her rather clear argument; forgive me. I still claim that a topic is not worth encyclopedic coverage unless if secondary sources have discussed it; in the context of a concept like this, the book is a primary source, I think. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yer a good guy, Bunch! (May I call you Bunch?) Smart, too! I'm thinking that the Raccoon really belongs in the article on the book, which doesn't contain much about what the book actually says, but is full of strong and often spurious criticism ("original research"?). If put there, it would boil a whole acerbic chapter down to a few acerbic words. Lou Sander 21:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Bunch, Grapes, BoG... it's all good. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewellery[edit]

Had a sense it was going to fail; very much premature, & unfortuinate that Spawn pulled it off - but I always thought it had potential, hence I've been working on it - how does it get re-listed/nominated; is there a "recommended waiting period" before it gets renommed? Bridesmill 23:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I usually recommend waiting at least 2 weeks, preferably closer to 4, before renominating. Raul654 23:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Works for me; will prob take nearly that long to knock it into shape anyways

SHysterical.gif Thanks for the advice.Bridesmill 01:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

SupportOppose[edit]

Hey, thanks for the heads up, I never would have noticed. Now it just seems really funny. Anyway, have a good day. --WillMak050389 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Blanking a talk page[edit]

It's kind of a moot point since the block was shortened anyway. And actually, I'm pretty mild when it comes to blocking. I know of quite a few admins who would block him for much longer for blanking his talk page. I could name them but I'd rather not get hit. ;-) --Woohookitty(meow) 20:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm left speechless. Someone else say something. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Something. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that, that I saw coming! Thanks! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was fairly obvious. Sorry about that. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

FAC[edit]

Sorry, I didn't notice that rule. --GoOdCoNtEnT 03:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello![edit]

{{User:Scarbor/Hello!}}

Is that what you mean? --Scarbor 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? --Scarbor 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
If you would like to know more about Esperanza, and its various smile campaigns, go to WP:ESP. We aren't spamming, we are just out to help other people have a nice day. There has already been a TFD about this, so don't bring it up again. --Scarbor 15:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I am making myself clear. What does this take? I'm not being disruptive! --Scarbor 15:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, Aslan and Lion of Judah and Torchwood and the British Empire all rolled into one BFF smiley spam? Try hard, and I'm sure you can squeeze in a little more... Long live Harry Potter and Dirty Harry and Harridans in general and General Harridan the whore of Babylon!!! KillerChihuahua?!? 15:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that it adds one to [[Category:Friends of Scarbor]]! Altogether powerful stuff. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bunchofgrapes. I think there is reason to believe that User:Scarbor may be a sockpuppet of indef banned User:Bling-chav, given the spurious/misinformed RfA nomination of Blink-chav by Scarbor. Anyway, I certainly support blocking this user. If a checkuser showed sockpuppetry that would be strong support for an indef block. Best, Gwernol 15:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of gathered that -- maybe User:Piedras_grandes is involved as well in this crowd. I don't think a CheckUser is needed in any case: the account has zero good and many bad contributions, that I can see, and is clearly somebody returning to cause a little trouble. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

POKE 54296, 17[edit]

I certainly was the guy. Those were glorious days, and glorious days to be Louis F. Sander. For several years back then, I could walk into any shopping mall in North America, on any day of the year, and find my work. (Plus the work of guys like you, of course. I always got a kick out of giving people a taste of recognition.)

My 15 minutes of fame lasted and lasted and lasted, but sadly, they ended quite a while ago. All I'm famous for these days is writing dumbass articles on the farts of giant raccoons. (Everybody wants to get rid of them, too, and oddly, I suppose, I agree.) OH, how the mighty have fallen!

A couple of years ago I got an email from a guy whose parents had called him back home to clean out his old computer stuff. As he looked through his RUN magazines, he found a Magic item submitted by a guy named Timothy McVeigh. I did some research on the famous Tim, and there were reports that he had been a Commodore enthusiast. On that and on the basis of age and hometown, I concluded that the famous Tim and my guy were one and the same. Cool, but when you think about it, I was probably the first person to give Tim a taste of name recognition. Later on, he found a way to get more. Sheesh!

I was thinking the other day that, since I paid most of the contributors directly, I probably have Tim's signature on a cancelled check in my archives. (BTW, you're not Osama bin Laden, are you? If you are, I promise I'll never tell.)

I often wonder what ever happened to the hundreds of people whose tips were published in the Magic column. I'm guessing most have done well, since they had to be pretty clever to come up with something good enough to make it into the column. And, in case you're wondering, I'm thinking that rising to a Wikipedia administratorship is a definite sign of doing well! Lou Sander 00:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

PS - If the success of your Magic submission had any effect on your later life, I'd really like to know about it. Sometimes small things leave big marks. (But usually not, of course.)

PPS - My first taste of Moutai was with Jim Butterfield, a Commodore writer who flourished earlier than I did, and who IMHO was the only person ahead of me on the list of famous Commodore writers.

And even the raccoon articles are derivitave of somebody else's work. But I guess the Magic column was, too. Lou Sander 01:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Another set of eyes would help[edit]

On Cleanness, someone has wanted to change "from Christian legend and pseudopygrapha" to "from Christian mythology and pseudopygrapha" and change "fall of Satan" to "the Great Fall." I've gone reverting a couple of times now. I attempted a compromise by allowing them (there are two accounts suddenly interested in a poem by the Pearl Poet) to have their link in an easter egg and have a display text of "legend." See what you think.

By the way, for background: there is a lot of talk about "myth means just story in Greek, and so it should be used all the time now." That's actually untrue. In ancient Greek, the word did mean just "story" for a while, but it already meant "fabulous story" by the time of Plato. This is in addition to the fact that in English it means "untrue story." Seems to me that you need a reason to push that change and to try to reshape 400 years of English usage and another 600 years of Greek usage. However, that's not really the point, here. The point is whether there is any purpose at all in having a link to an incendiary term, when it's not central to the article and, in fact, not informative to the article. (Readers get zero benefit from clicking the link.) Geogre 01:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for copyedit[edit]

Hi! I was wondering if you'd be willing to take on another university article to copy edit after your great job with the Cornell article. Duke University is a current FAC, but User:mercuryboard has requested a set of eyes to "thoroughly copyedit." Anyways, if you have time/the desire to go through another university article, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! -Bluedog423 05:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. University articles generally put me to sleep. I made an uncharacteristic exception for my alma mater. Thanks for asking though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The enabler, sympathiser, etc, etc[edit]

Oh noes more ongoing patronage and tireless efforts! Somebody's going to need to post a link to a thesaurus for the tireless bishonenwatcher soon, I reckon. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC).

Oh boy. They drama continues. Might I venture that a week-long block or similar on HE might be in order for yesterday's outbursts? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Yo, Bunch! I wonder if you could possibly delete User:RevNeal to give the guy a clean history. I inadvertently posted content there that should have gone to his talk page. I've since moved it, but my footprints are all over the place in his nice, shiny new user page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, done. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist[edit]

Well, he's on civility parole. This edit and this one suggest that he's due a reminder that Arbitration Committee paroles have teeth. But I've started a more compendious discussion on what to do, at [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive119#What to do about Karmafist|WP:ANI#What_to_do_about_Karmafist]] --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes... I've been commenting in that thread. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you awake?[edit]

Bunch? Bishonen | talk 06:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

Just now. Checking email. Hang on. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, Bunch is open for business. What can I do you for? Need some work done on Kumis? Or The Muffin Man? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh... I wanted some help, right. Today's assignment is to look at the timestamp and figure it out. Never mind, it was ages ago. Bishonen | talk 17:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

Block-happy[edit]

I blocked that IP for 24 hr. My feeling is that it's a regular account that is simply logged out to drunkenly stagger around pooting here and there. I.e. I don't think it was made with any lack of awareness of the inappropriateness, so a 24 hr block looked pretty appealing. Geogre 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no argument here at all. I was just composing one last stern final warning that surely would have had them shaking in their cowardly anonymous boots, but it was already overkill. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
And then they had such nice things to say about you, Geogre. [1]. I've protected the talk page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I know. So Bobby rolled to 2-3 other IP's, kept doing the squat and run, and basically swinging his arms in all directions. You know that's going to be effective. No, I'm not going to do a checkuser, because I'm not motivated, but anyone actually irritated by a particular recently-departed might well do so. Geogre 08:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

kinda shocked[edit]

i'm shocked that as an admin you would just repeat an insulting line that a user expressed dislike for. tony sideway apologized to me, and i was find about it - why would you come along and rub salt in it? Themindset 22:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I completely misunderstood your meaning, I thought you were reinforcing his comment towards me. Themindset 22:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
looks like i'm the one who owes you an apology! sorry bout that. Themindset 22:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism[edit]

Hey a long time ago you decided to pick a fight with me :-) So now I get to bother you since you're one of hte admins I know :-)

Anyway can you please advise how New anti-Semitism might become a FA candidate or otherwise comment on this suggestion? - Abscissa 04:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man[edit]

I owe you something for that feedback. A medal or sumthing. Thanks Cs-wolves 21:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would trust an admin, rather than some guy. Thanks again Cs-wolves 22:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If I happened to be blocked, would you be able to unblock me?? Cs-wolves 22:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Flatulent Raccoon redux[edit]

The rest of the world is discovering the Gassy Masked Bandit! Maybe one of these years he'll be "notable"...click me. ;-) Lou Sander 01:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Architecture of Norway[edit]

I've been working pretty diligently to respond to the objections against the nomination, as you'll see if you looked. I've also solicited feedback from architects both within and outside the Wikipedia community. I think that failing it without taking this into account is a highly questionable practice. Please tell me why I should not simply remove the tag you inserted. --Leifern 02:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Eddie[edit]

I could be wrong, but Can't sleep, Yankees will beat Red Sox (talk · contribs) sounds just like Eddie Segoura. —Viriditas | Talk

Let's see, in his short edit history we got Yankees, Hurricanes, Power Rangers, and interests in vanity pages and RfA. And his block-evading anonymous contribs are from AOL. Likely indeed. Perhaps I will leave a message on his talk page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh. I took a look at the discussion on his talk page. It does sound like him, doesn't it? —Viriditas | Talk 03:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
And what on earth did he do this for? A project page for hurricanes that redirects to the article? TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I missed this comment. Yeah. I don't know. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Reminder[edit]

Never, ever run for Arbcom. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. But I am the second most neutral editor ever to be born. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Which raises the burning question, whom do you consider the first? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've heard we should ask Jimbo. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
roflmao, that's not what I asked, dear. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. In my opinion, the most neutral editor ever is... uh... Willy on Wheels. Completely, zenfully, devoid of POV. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
ah... very Zen, you're right. Such admirable detachment is surely the epitome of NPOV. Pity the most NPOV editor is also disruptive and harmful to the project as a whole. Still, it bears contemplation. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Contemplation ON WHEELS! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I am so tempted to move your user page to Contemplation ON WHEELS. Admire my restraint. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I do. I do. Did you ever see the now-deleted Wikipedia:Requests for wheels (on wheels)?. I had to stop looking at it, it doubled me over in uncontrollable laughter every time I did. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

His excellency's case[edit]

Thanks, I know it, but I had no time to write anything compelling before the case was opened, and then I didn't want the section for my statement to be empty. Pecher Talk 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. Makes sense. Thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Anagrams[edit]

You mention anagrams on your user page. Am I to safely assume you will realize I am addressing you should I type one of the following?

  • a french pus bog
  • french soup bag
  • he gun fab corps
  • he gun bop scarf
  • bangor chef pus
  • garb chef no pus
  • apron bug chefs
  • cheap frog snub (or snub cheap frog)

Sorry about the recurring "pus" - it must be the cheese fly article inspiring me. beach works too, though:

  • beach spun frog
  • beach surf pong
  • spurn beach fog

There are more.... KillerChihuahua?!? 15:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

All good. Plus, I've had to become something of a pus expert working on Milk. (Which always contains some white blood cells, more if the cow has an udder infection. The dairy industry tends to call these white blood cells "somatic cells". Anti-milk groups like PETA tend to call them "pus".) French soup bag 18:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
You're so full of delightful bits of trivia. Tell me, do you know any which do not provoke slight nausea? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Hoping to cure his tuberculosis, in 1901, Anton Chekhov went to a resort where he drank four bottles of sour, bubbly, fermented horse milk a day for two weeks and gained 12 pounds? Hmm. I see what you mean. Cheap frog snub 19:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

question on link[edit]

Bunchofgrapes,

I added what I considered to be a valuable link to the Oroonoko page - a study guide by GradeSaver. You removed it because you said it was a commercial link.

However, if you read the content in the study guide, I think you will agree that it is a very valuable resource for students written by other students. Further, the content on the page complements the Wikipedia page on Oroonoko by providing additional content that most readers would be looking for. I thought this was the whole point of putting external links up.

I would appreciate your feedback as to why this link was removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Franklee1 (talkcontribs) 17:16, July 15, 2006 (UTC)

Response. (http://www.gradesaver.com/classicnotes/titles/oroonoko/ is the link in question, for the curious. The goggles do nothing.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I rolled it back as well. There are multiple online notes for the novel, as it is, indeed, the most studied of Behn's works. However, we consciously chose not to link to any of them. The only one linked to was a professor's course on the novel, and that was only made to demonstrate to the reader the critical contexts in which the novel is read (post-colonialism, in his case). Had we wished to give complementary materials, I think I would have opted for SparkNotes first. However, since we're avoiding all of them, we should avoid the one you favor as well. Geogre 02:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say hello[edit]

See Bishonen's talk page and you could say that what I posted there applies to you too. Yes, it is positive. I hope our personal drama can be placed to rest as well, because if you do remember, in the beginning we had actually thought about collaborating on blueberry! So please look to the future, and should I return permanently by the year's end, I will make sure that whatever I learned from you is applied to my editing too (the other being Bishonen). Things could really work out if we let compromising do the job. Take care, whether you care about this or not. 64.231.77.2 23:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were in Japan? No? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You've already been told that I'm in Japan. I certainly am. 64.231.66.47 01:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
And for some reason you are proxying through your computer, which is sitting in a library in Canada? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You've also already been told that this computer is connected to the library, but it is portable and accessible worldwide. Don't you remember that discussion? Would you like the link? 64.231.66.47 01:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The truth — mostly, because my brother did write that :). And here is your response. You chose to ignore the details. Oh well, your loss, not mine. 64.231.66.47 02:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I remember that discussion, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps you need to walk me through it more slowly. Is this portable computer of yours physically in Canada or Japan? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The computer is generally in my possession, as it is currently because I am accessing it to speak with you. Because I am based in Japan, the computer is also in Japan. When I arrive in Sweden later this year, the computer will be with me in Sweden. Finally, when I return to Canada, it will still be in my possession. Now I have walked you through the process; do you require more knowledge or have you reverted to the crawling stage? 64.231.66.47 02:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
In other words, it is a laptop connected with the Toronto Reference Library IP address (but not the major IP address — it would be the end of me if that were blocked!). 64.231.66.47 02:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way. The IP isn't inherent in the computer. If you were connecting to the internet through any sort of service provider or network hotspot in Japan, you would show us an IP address from that Japanese provider. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way. While you may know a thing or two about computers, I do too. The server is controlled via satellite, and every time it is activiated, messages are sent to the reference library in downtown Toronto. The computer itself will not fully load for ten minutes as a result, but I beat around the bush. Also, it doesn't matter whether you believe me or not, because, honestly, what do you believe at this point? 64.231.66.47 02:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
To be frank, I haven't believed anything you have said in a great while, and have been demonstrated right quite often on that count. This conversation was more by way of letting others who may be watching — who may be more newly aquainted with you — see what kind of ball of lies you are willing to twist yourself up into. They may also wish to compare this post, where you describe getting "100% guaranteed access to a computer in Japan": strange phrasing indeed to use when referring to bringing along your own computer and its miraculous Japan -> Satellite -> Canadian Library connection. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You let the cat out of the bag rather late in this discussion. I knew that right from the beginning (someone who is infuriated with another does not ask them to "walk them through" a process), but alas, to your dismay everything I've said is rather true. It is a shame that you are so overconfident in what you believe, since in my view most of it is futile and rightfully predictable. Please take the time to use this as evidence one way or another — or not since you've claimed to be bored with me on several occasions — but don't "walk" your way into your own trap. Curiosity killed the cat; damn those mothballs! 64.231.66.47 02:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like remoting into the Canadian library? I'm assuming the library doesn't have VPN enabled. So, you work at the library? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A new section[edit]

LOL. Here, Bunch, sit yourself down, breathe into this paper bag. Gently does it. Can I get you anything? Shot of bourbon? Something illegal? Oxygen? Beta blocker? Digitalis?Bishonen | talk 03:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC).

I think he'll be fine. I really need to go out now. 64.231.66.47 03:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead and spoil the effect of Bish's sweet sweet solace. I've put in a section break; I wouldn't want anything to interfere with the beauty that is the previous thread. Bishonen, I'll take any random two of those. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Your life, your choice. 64.231.79.4 13:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ashes to ashes...[edit]

Yeah. It's a little sad, since it was always a bright spot in my day to see what his latest incarnation was. But who knows, he did remark that he wouldn't stop until he reached ____ on Wheels notoriety. It's always fun to have my own personal vandal to watch for! Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 04:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

McDonald's[edit]

Hi there, I noticed you have the second last edit on the McDonald's page. You reverted 222.155.92.244's edit, who went back and added the {{hr-protected}} tag at the top of the article. Just thought I'd alert you to that. Cheers, — riana_dzastatce 05:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

FA star = bear baiting?[edit]

Bear baiting? Hell no. Is there something I need to be clued in about? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK it?[edit]

Ok. Here's my suggested text.

...that Red Man, one of the leading brands of chewing tobacco (now owned by Swedish Match), has been especially successful in marketing itself with rural sporting events?

Now, go to template:DYK and figger out how to put a tiny picture up with it (I recommend Red-Man.png), and we're in business. I would do it, but it needs to be signed, and it's your article. (Also, you get to keep the food and beverage theme.) Geogre 18:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. Food and Beverage? Your definition is broader than mine! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, wine and tobacco...both adjuncts to a night out, and smelly cheese is no doubt a gourmandizing experience for some. For me, Ritz Crackers, a jar of Peter Pan Peanut Butter, and a glass of iced tea is a fine night on the town. (Fishing for more redneck red links, here.) Geogre 00:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Smelly cheeses are good (look for the cheeses with the reddish-orange, slimy rinds...), and have the side benefit of not giving you a slow, lingering death. No red links for you! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but I did discover a necessary redirect! (Also, I think the stuff is called PPPB and not PP (pb).) I see that Skoal is a redirect to US Tobacco, which is strange, given that it's more famous than any other brand and may be more famous than even Red Man (and it leads to the infamous Skoal ring of recent country music song). However, I'm not keen on that. I'm wondering if I can find any other redneckery on a totally different vein, such as cane pole fishing (probably not a proper article anyway) or sin eater. All the Foxfire books would be great sources of little known appalachia. Geogre 02:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of tobacco...[edit]

I wrote a nice article for DYK that might interest you: "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should." Tell me what you think. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 18:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fun! Needs more sourcing though. For example, I don't see in your reference that the Flinstones or the Beverly Hillbillies actually used that slogan when pitching Winstons. And Web references are mostly untrustworthy in my book -- I added one book reference to the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I sourced the Flinstones one with a page with the actual commercial file on it, and with The Beverly Hillbillies I saw a clip of the commercial on an E! True Hollywood Story; I don't know how to source that. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 18:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You obsoleted my comments rather quickly there. Well done! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good article![edit]

I thought you might be interested to know the article we worked on, "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should," has been promoted to good article status after just one day. Thanks for contributing to a job well done! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ICRC move/creation[edit]

Hello Bunchofgrapes, for the past few months I've been writing a new International Committee of the Red Cross article. I'm finally satisfied enough to propose its move into the main namespace, though it's far from perfect. That article is at User:Draeco/ICRC, and I've proposed a move here. I hope you can take the time to give your opinion, because I see you've commented on the subject before here. - Draeco 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy ?[edit]

Is this user O.K. ? I have seen evidence of someone accusing this user of violating WP:SOCK protocol and using abusive language. He needs help. Martial Law 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, a checkuser Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy showed that DreamGuy and User:Victrix were "likely" sockpuppets, unfortunately. The abusive language accusations stunk like old cheese, but the sockpuppet thing was serious. DreamGuy hasn't edited since June 1 and never responded to the evidence; Victrix never gave much of a response either and hasn't edited since June 21. Admins are aware of the situation but there is little to be done. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Veryinteresting1[edit]

Could you remove this from the list? It is only going to be accessed for a few days, and listing all those IPs was ridiculous of you anyway. You could have been doing other things. —EE

No. In my view tracking your IPs and IDs is relevant to the case. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have a talk page. —EE 23:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I Have a Pony? Where's that bourbon? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Tomorrow the walrus. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Goo goo gajoob! TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That cleared it all up. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rhino[edit]

Gosh - thanks for the better scan! -- ALoan (Talk) 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can mooch off the web under the aegis of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. with the best of them! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 18 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Red Man, 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.

-- Grue  16:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The use of U[edit]

Sorry that I changed so many before I saw your mesage. I guess I figured I'd free up some usless memeory those three or four characters were taking up in wikipedia's database. Memory that could be better used elsewhere.

I am, of course, being facetious.

I guess I figured that both spellings were correct, changing it wouldn't be noticed/corrected/what-have-you. I was incorrect.

Good day,

Andrew

The bishbot[edit]

I present to you ladies and gentlemen: the bishbot. My life is complete. I shall comport myself with even greater regal dignity from now on. [/bishbot takes the little arbcom out of her pocket, articulates their arms and legs gently, then less gently. Feeble cries are heard. Stuffs them unceremoniously back.] bishbot | talk 22:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

Bishbot at work, no less. I had no idea you were a bot, nor of your newfound intrest in things Tajik. <POUT> Nobody ever names their bots after me! </POUT> —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Stuff[edit]

Is that vandalism still happening? --HappyCamper 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Exicornt? It's getting pretty rare of late. There are some signs of renewed interest in the last week or so though :-( —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I recently received a request for an unblocking about a week ago, but I did not get to read it until today. My feeling at this point is that any unblocking decision should probably be deferred to Jimbo. It's my understanding that this happened on multiple Wikis, and an unblocking is something I don't feel comfortable taking responsibility for. What is your take on this position? --HappyCamper 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mythology[edit]

Hi Bunch of Grapes. I used to respect your edits here, seeing you trying to do what's good for the encyclopedia. It wasn;t that long ago you were definding me from attacks by a newbie who was clearlyly here only to attack me. You referred to me as something along the lines of "a well-respected longtime contributor who always does what's best for the project". Since then I was driven off by harassment both on Wikipedia and off. I periodically hop back on with anon accounts just to try to care of the most blatant problems. Your recent actions on Mythology, supporting a blind revert of a number of badly-needed changes, most of which nobody has commented on at all (reverting the whole thing because of a couple of sections), however, shows a stunning lack of following the principles of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. You claimed that Ishould have to make my edits one by one, when that is not the case at all, as someone who objects to something should change that and not EVERYTHING back to the way it was. All you are doing is trying to make my edits take a trememndous amount of extra work for no good purpose. If you would take a minute or two and go over the list of changes there, you would see that most of them are extrmely badly needed (removing spam, POV, etc.) and the few potentially objectionable parts ALREADY have been thorooughly discussed on the talk page history. By demanding a consensus SINCE June 7, all KC is doing is created a huge amount of busy body work, expecting there to be a huge gathering of beaurocrats to vote on changes, even when they go along with longstanding precedent on the article. It's nonsense like this that scares off the well-respected longstanding contributors and shows that it all seems to be moving to a private party of busy bodies with no knowledge of the topics putting up red tape just to keep the status quo instead of slipping into sheer nonsense. I would hope you take the time to examine your actions and reflect upon them. 172.144.20.69 20:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's you, I thought it might be. Look -- I have no idea why those refs you removed are spam, and some parts of your "good version" look a lot more POV to me than what's there now. And I have no idea who's right on the categorization issue, I haven't looked into it. If you would make those changes one at a time and have the decency to explain them at least with an edit summary, than editors who aren't conversant with the last two years of the talk page could keep up without just having to assume that you know best. (And frankly, "rv to last good version" is a rude thing to say: it implies that you are some neutral arbitor of what content is good or bad.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mariah[edit]

There was no Mariah; Courtni was just using that name while operating Winnermario because she liked Mariah Carey and at the time didn't want to give out her given name. With Hollow Wilerding, she decided it would be okay to reveal her name. That's the truth. Don't believe me, then that's your problem. —EE 02:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you could, when you receive this message, pleae delete the talk page and the profile page for this account; but not the way it was done with the Eternal Equinox page, which is because few people know about this account. Thanks. See you again someday. Maybe. —EE 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Tell me BoG - have you ever suffered from Déjà vu? Giano | talk 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It is simply astonishing how many times s/he can do the big goodbye, isn't it? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Eddie again[edit]

Hi. As long as the accounts aren't being used for voting or the type of exicornt vandalism we've seen, I'm not too concerned, but something needs to be done at some point because he is a rogue user (heh), and after all this time he either doesn't understand how Wikipedia works or refuses to play by the rules. Would it be possible for the information on User:YankeeFan2006 to be merged into a Yankees related article? I'm sure there's an appropriate article for this kind of data. I think baseball enthusiasts find these statistics to be quite valuable, but some of Eddie's writing needs to be revised for grammar/clarity. —Viriditas | Talk 03:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A terrifying thought -- I hadn't even considered trying to repurpose that stuff as actual content. Naively, I'd say there are too many baseball games a year to want to give even mini-summaries of all of them, but I'm sure someone would disagree with that. ("Wikipedia isn't paper!") Hmm. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Looking at his page, he links to 2006 in baseball in the first paragraph. So, essentially, the content either belongs there, or within Category:2006 in baseball. It's like he's using his user page as a sandbox. Someone should gently encourage him to move the relevant data to the correct page, but then again, he's not supposed to be editing, right? I really don't know how to handle this, other than to block all of his accounts (although I don't have the power to do that). He's already promised to be good and refrain from usings sock puppets, but he broke that agreement already. —Viriditas | Talk 09:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, he's a banned user and it's within policy to simply block him. Doing so before he shows any really strong Eddie behavior has two problems -- what if we're wrong? and does it do more harm than good? Maybe the little user-page thing is a harmless outlet for whatever is wrong with the guy. In any case, I think you're right that encouraging him to edit article-space is probably not the right thing to do. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I could be mistaken here, but I seem to recall the latest sock puppets popping up on en right after NSLE protected EddieSegoura. Out of curiousity, is it standard practice to protect talk pages of banned users while a discussion is taking place on the users talk page? —Viriditas | Talk 02:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, looking at the history, NSLE protected User talk:EddieSegoura at the same time. I'm not quite sure what his motivation was, but presumably it was to encourage a banned user to, you know, not edit... and let us all stop wasting our time watching and cleaning up that page. Standard practice? I don't think it's specified anywhere. Unusual? No. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Just curious. In any event, given the amount of damage done (google exicornt), I feel that Eddie's accounts should be blocked on sight; if a checkuser matches any of the known accounts listed on my wikipuppets page (categorized under the EddieSegoura sockpuppet cat) I suggest that User talk:YankeeFan2006 be blocked immediately. —Viriditas | Talk 03:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe its worth checkusering. Although AOL isn't checkuserable, and he's probably more careful now. Worth a shot. I'll ask Essjay. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Requested at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/YankeeFan2006. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 04:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Illness?[edit]

Feel better, Grappo. It's probably just some Troll Voodoo. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, Bish. Damn trolls. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Until....[edit]

Until you feel better, anyone posting here for Admin assisstance should go to Wikipedia:Administrators instead, until you feel better. You're the 2nd Admin that needs TLC right now. Try some garlic amd Jalapeno peppers. I've been doing this for years, never had a illness. Sat link still screwing up my sig and preventing me from logging in @ this time. Martial Law 19:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Where am I supposed to insert the garlic and Jalepenos now? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You eat these, maybe some Habaneros as well. Martial Law 19:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Get well[edit]

I hope, too, you will recover soon. --BorgQueen 21:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BQ. Wish granted. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a prune, get well soon! —Viriditas | Talk 00:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's some fine verse there. Thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, great one...[edit]

Had a question, thought you might be able to help out. You recently removed the Dunwich Horror painting from Cthulu, I tried reinserting it with some extra text to pass the fair use test. [2] Would you mind checking, and if I erred, remove the offending image? Thanks. See ya. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just working on researching that, in fact. It feels wrong to me, since this painting almost certainly didn't accompany the story in its original form (pulp horror magazines, I think) but at some point was maybe commisioned or licensed for use in a specific book reprinting the Dunwich Horror, and other stories. I didn't get anybody else to weigh in at WP:FUR when I asked about whether this picture had legitimate fair use *anywhere* though. But I'd like to find some more precise dates at least. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I find no mention of the painting anywhere but that it is the artwork on the front flyleaf cover of Arkham house's 1984 issuing of The Dunwich Horror and Others. The Dunwich Horror having been published (in Weird Tales) in 1929, I don't think a case can be made that using this artwork alongside a discussion of the short story is fair-use. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you're right. Too bad though. Thanks anyways. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I know. It's a really nice image. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Disambiguation[edit]

I just added a common slang usage of the word "cheese" to the Disambiguation list & it was killed.

Why ?

WSB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.74.74 (talkcontribs)

As I said in my edit summary, cheese (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page; that is, it is a navigation aid that points to existing articles. It is not a place to create little mini-articles or definitions. As for the obvious question of whether there should be a Wikipedia article on that term, Wikipeida isn't a dictionary of slang, so probably not -- I can't be sure though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)