Jump to content

User talk:Bishonen/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Ipse dixit

Tipsy dipso. I think we all need a bloody good drink and cheering up, so here's a start. Then we can go ram-page-ing through the wiki Giano

Apparently, I'm Aristotle now. :-( I hate being in front of the column, and now we've got what I consider the reductive gesture of personalizing. "It's the US vs. Saddam Hussein!" "It's the US vs. Manuel Noreiga!" No: issues and ideologies clash, and it's a mug's game to buy into the "mano e mano" myth. So, no, I won't answer personal questions in soundbytes. It's not a soundbyte kind of thing. Geogre 11:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • My mistake. It wasn't me that anyone wanted to talk to. Apparently, that person wanted to accuse his reflection of being mean to him for having the left hand on the right side. <shrug> Geogre 12:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(This belongs two sections up, but I didn't want it to be missed: I broke Cockney School back out and fleshed it considerably, and it uses that beefcake picture of Leigh Hunt. Geogre 13:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

help

Wassup Bishy?? How've you been? Well, I'm not sure if you remember me but anyway I'm finally back. I was wondering if you help me out in a conflict with User:Miborovsky who threatened me to nominate my userpage for deletion and accuse me violating WP:POINT. Anyway, your help will be greatly appreciated. thanks--Bonafide.hustla 01:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Boney, my man, of course I remember you, who wouldn't? Have you been getting in trouble again, huh? Sorry to say I need an admin break and a general quarrelling break right now, so could you ask someone else, please? And note that I've put a general request to admin watchers of this page below, under the "Are you listening?" heading. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC).

Aight, I see. But I just need a big favor from you, you kno El_C who is like an "acquaitance" of yours, he protected my userpage. A mesage left earlier today wasn't replied, so I was wondering if you can unprotect it for me, please? I know you're on admin break and stuff but I'll really appreciate that. --Bonafide.hustla 05:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Boney! Sigh. I see that my dear El C (an acquaintance? how cold that sounds!) protected your page because you kept re-introducing racist material on it. Now, I don't care if your material was "no worse than" whoever's, as you say.[1] You're responsible for your own page, not for other people's. Don't tell me you put that (very offensive) material on it in order to make a point about somebody elses's page, I don't want to hear that. And no, I'm not going to mess with the other person's page. I assume El C had his reasons for not removing that material, and you do not get to "admin shop" between him and me about other people's pages. Please concern yourself with the acceptability of your own page only. Let me ask you this: are you proud of that material? Here's the deal: if you promise to not reintroduce it, nor anything else that's in the least like it, then I'll trust you and unprotect your page. Don't play me, now. Bishonen | talk 08:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

Omg, you seriously needa calm down. I feel kinda bad for makin' you feel so pissed off. But anyway enough said, I ain't gonna defend myself now. I will probably request to be block in a short while since there really is no point of me bein' herre, you know. Oh yeah, one last thing, I am NOT admin shopping between El C and you because obviously you two have a very close relationship and frequently contact one another. I asked you because I felt you're prolly the only admin I trust and respect. Anyway, that's all I gotta say.--Bonafide.hustla 00:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I'm going to do. Since your an admin, can you please block me for a week? (both to fight addiction and because I'm not welcomed) But please make sure you write on the edit summary that it is a self-requested block. Thanks a lot! :)--Certified.Gangsta 11:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'd honor your request if I could, but we're not supposed to do self-requested blocks. I'm sorry you feel unwelcome, too—I know you're an ambitious contributor! Bishonen | talk 12:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

Opinion needed

Hey, there is a bit of an edit war going on in the external links section of The World Can't Wait and Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. The talk pages of each include the relevant info (although posts keep getting removed, so you may need to look in the history. It seems to me that User:In the Stacks has an axe to grind with Chuck Munson (which appears to be mutual) and as such is refusing to allow any links to Chuck's website infoshop.org. This isn't going anywear, so I thought I'd ask an uninvolved party for their opinion. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 04:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, ungovernable. Sorry, I can't take any more of that type of stuff right now, I hope somebody else steps into the breech (compare above and below). Bishonen | talk 21:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC).
Well, I weighed in with a tentative opinion on UF's talk. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate it, Unmanageable Bunch. Ping? Bishonen | talk 22:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC).
Two more hours or so. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Pong. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

im Svenska!

Hey, one of "my" (quotes mandatory) articles is now in Swenska. It's Jonathan Wild, and I think it's up for FA there, too. It's a great tonic to the troops to see one's article spread to other languages. Geogre 19:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, currently up for votes as Excellent or Read-Worthy article!

There seems to be some mild criticism of the translation--"needs sprucing up". I'll take a look later. If the need is real, I'm sure there'll be plenty of users up for sprucing at sv.wiki. Or ALoan can do it, his Swedish is just fine. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC).

"...his Swedish is just fine" - his Swedish what I might ask. (Don't tell Madame ALoan about the au pair... or three). Børk, børk, børk, as we say in Sweden.
I'm sorry to hear that you are stressed, Bishonen - please take it easy. This is all castles in the air: none of it really matters compared to Real People with Real Feelings in Real Life. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you listening?

There is an odd scratching and whimpering at the door to the salon. Is a small puppy outside, in the cold? Did she get lost? Poor little thing, she's been wandering out in the world too long... see her licking her little bruised paws. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I think what you're hearing is the sound of the hostess trying to get out, actually.

Time to send herself for a purdah in the sandbox and her gracious Shitsuit Oilskins for a good dry-clean, I think. But welcome back, little puppy! Come in, take the weight off the paws, the guys will be round shortly for a dish of tay and a natter. Meanwhile, could some of all youse useless admins watching this page take a look at Bonafide Hustla's and Ungovernable's requests above, please? I'm taking an admin break. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC).

Taking an admin break - but why? You could be chatering in all sorts of secret places, it must be like being a Ladyfreemason, but without the silly business with the trouserleg and perced nipple Giano 06:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh do open the door somebody and let her in - why are your paws bruised? My paws are quite bruised too! Giano 21:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I have been spending an inordinate amount of time in a strange and hostile place - I think some refer to it as the Real World. Why are your paws bruised, poor Giano? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
OMG she's missed all the fun. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Bishonen | talk 22:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC).
Do you have to be insane to post here or can anybody join in? --GraemeL (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you actually not insane? What is that like? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Insanity is just a state of mind. --GraemeL (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm in the state of florida, close enough. Dear me, Giano, what a hubbub! I saw the beginnings but it just keeps going, yes? It will take time to read all that mess. Who is Inksplotch? Is Tony reformed? Did anyone listen to David D, who makes some excellent clear points? Did Kelly actually approve the use of "Lying primadonnas" in the evidence section of an Arbcom case, as pasted by Cyde from her This is not Wikipedia blog entry? Stay tuned, sports fans... KillerChihuahua?!? 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
My advice: don't read it. It will take you from the insane state of Florida to the state of insanity very quickly. There has been a lot of unexplainable stuff there. The blog being "evidence" was just one of the weirder ones, and no one commented on it amongst the arbitrators. According to user PizzaHut2 (what happened to PizzaHut1, I wonder), Kelly really did give permission. This by corroboration to Cyde's statement that she did. Now, that might make you think that she has a low opinion of what can be evidence or a high opinion of herself, but I take it as just one more example of how far out people can get when they believe themselves instead of the group, or when they define their group only as those who agree in the first place, which is why my alternate text was consistently about narrowcasting in untraceable communications fora. That may sound like a very specialized complaint (and a lot of people who read...quickly, I guess...read it that way), but what I was getting at was the impulse among many people, when they find their desires checked, to pull in the fences and start appealing to smaller groups rather than larger, whether those people are arbitrators deciding to ask only themselves or beaurocrats hiding their process or a group of administrators secreting their opinions and then acting on them in public. No matter who it is, when you see that the disagreement is rational or widespread, it's time to open up more, time to explain more fully, not to close the door and turn off the lights. Apparently, my simple view is construed by some people as a "political" struggle (and I still don't think Wikipedia is a polis that can have politics) or, what I have never thought, much less said, that I think that administrators abuse users. Either I'm really not able to communicate very well at all or some people cannot read or some people simply don't believe that I mean what I say (when I've been pretty consistent for years). Geogre 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to avoid it. My avoidance has not been entirely successful, but has been facilitated by the amount of bull... discussion text on the pages of the case. At this point it would require a few days full-time work to get updated. One thing that puzzles me is Kelly Martin's not-a-cow thing. What's that all about? (BTW, Bish, "The Bitch from Hell" sounds cööl, you should register that as a sockpuppet username.) up+land 07:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It's the censored version, Tups, it was really "bastard bitch from hell", as spoken by a (then) administrator of famous graciousness. Long and unwitty, I think you'll agree. The sock nick I'd really like, "bishzilla", is unfortunately already taken—to mock me, no doubt. BTW, and very much apropos, you might want to look in on your otäcka gubbe that you like so much. He has an, uh, request. I'm not going back there. Bishonen | talk 11:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC).
<AGF>Perhaps the "bastard" bit was actually a reference to the period you specialize in, and the reference to Hell was simply a misunderstanding, with you being Scandinavian and all, you know: Swiss, Norwegian, whatever... some place with mountains.</AGF> As for O.G., I couldn't care at this point, and I'm not going to do anything about it. up+land 20:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
"Updating" is not worth the trouble, really. I may say that Bish's performance was examplary throughout, despite personal attacks she's been subjected to. Much of the outrage has been taken to other venues, such as this one. Forget about it. Let's move on and talk about brighter stuff. The ArbCom elections are coming; will you support Bish if she nominates herself (as I sincerely hope she does)? --Ghirla -трёп- 08:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Ghirla (for the PA support, not so much the raving election lunacy :-P). Being attacked by a stranger apparently quite unaware of the background got to me, I admit. Yes, yes, I'm too touchy as we all know. Having regrouped, I'm back for a sandbox break, hoping the user you mention won't feel it necessary to come round and scoff at the paucity of what I do there. You have caught me in the perfect mood to run for ArbCom! Of course I will, just wait while I eat some broken glass first, 'cos that's fun too. To be serious for a moment, why don't you guys channel your energies into persuading a more eloquent and less cranky candidate to run? Bishonen | talk 11:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC).
I feel quite overwhelmed by your offer, but alas I have too many commitments elsewhere, I think Geogre is the ideal candidate or ALoan (allthough ALoan is too nice for his own good) - I think thoughsomeone with sense and logical reasoning should stand. Now back to that "famous insult" to Bishonen, are we going to allow that to remain unanswered - I wasn't too fod of beoing called a prima-donna either - shall I think up something to call that editor back? Giano 12:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Not me - I don't have enough time to write articles, let alone waste it deciding whether the devil or the deep blue sea is worse. It is the archetypal poisoned chalice, and I would rather eat some of Bish's tasty-sounding glass. I won't wish it on anyone else either - look what happened to poor Filiocht. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, heavens. Last night, I went on the IRC and saw that hordes were complaining about something on RfA. I asked which one they were complaining about, and I wouldn't get an answer. I suppose I need to stay more than 100 yards away from it, in the interests of pretty much everyone, now that I'm magnetic. (As I said, above, when something gets huge discontent, it's time to go wide, not narrow, in the discussion.) Geogre 10:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Giano, you mention someone with "sense and logical reasoning" standing for ArbCom - examine that carefully. It occurs to me that virtually everyone with "sense and logical reasoning" would have enough of those attributes to realize that ArbCom is not a Good Place to Be. It would be lovely if I am proven wrong; however it does seem like a long shot. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
also: Please make a note that I am the real bitch - female canine = bitch, yes? There is the kinder, gentler me, aka The puppy, and then there is the teeth bared head lowered hackles raised Bitch. Please don't confuse pale imitations such as scaly greeness from Tokyo with the genuine article. On the other hand, I don't have ArbCom in my pocket, although given recent events it looks like the Zilla's pocket may have a hole, or pocket lint, or something. Still, pocket lint serves its purpose, witness Arthur Dent. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
/Bishzilla scrabbles in her pocket for the little ArbCom. The pocket is empty.[2] Scrabbles some more, finds a small shoe. Eats it nostalgically, sighs. It has a tiny foot in it! She cheers up. Munches.Bishonen | talk 01:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Brevity is the sister of talent?

More to the point and far more interesting, what is the current thought on article length, my current work is becoming longer and longer and the end is nowhere in sight, I have a feeling I may be wandering off subject at times, but for once keep finding more and more fascinating (to me) information on what I thought was an obscure subject - there is not one published biography of her - so I'm having to ref almost every verb to prevent the charges or own research, can a page be over reffed and over long? Giano 08:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take my words easy, but I really think that most featured articles in Wikipedia are overlong. People tend to think: the longer the better. Not at all. Wikipedia is not a compendium of human knowledge. It seems to me that the concept of encyclopedia implies that the size of articles is limited. Encyclopaedia article is not expected to contain an exhaustive treatment of every aspect of the subject. It was not without reason that Flaubert and Pushkin omitted the finest pages from Onegin and Bovary. I confess that I never was able to read a featured article until the end in a single sitting (Sicilian Baroque being the only exception). And trust me, I'm not the laziest reader on this site. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Meh. I love monographs, myself. I always tell my charges, when they ask, "How long does this paper have to be," "As long as it needs to be." Discuss the subject fully, but keep interesting extranneous matter out. My version of "needs to be" is longer than another person's and not shorter than much of anyone's. Geogre 11:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
(I am going to bore everyone again with my rhino - please look away now if 500 year old woodcuts scare you.)
Is Dürer's Rhinoceros (the article, not the woodcut or the animal) too long? I'm not sure whether there are many shorter FAs that that. "What is the shortest FA?" would be a good question to ask on WT:FAC... (Giano's Victorian lady is fine and lovely; now, my Victorian lady, that is too long).-- ALoan (Talk) 11:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Dürer's Rhinoceros is just the right size. By the way, is there a more general article about the history of rhinos in Europe, along the lines of History of elephants in Europe? --Ghirla -трёп- 11:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Did you finish it in one sitting? :)
There is an article in French, but History of rhinoceroses in Europe and List of historical rhinoceroses have been on my redlink list for some time (after a long hiatus, I knocked off some easy ones, like Up-Park Camp, Letter of introduction and a redirect for gibnut yesterday).
Apropos of nothing, compare my article on Michael Pollock (written by mosaicing published newspaper obituaries) with today's obit in The Independent. Some turns of phrase are, um, rather familiar... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought they wrote people's obits before they die, that way they have a chance to proof read them and add their favourite bits about themselves. All the people I know whi have had them at least three have actually written their own completely. I shall certainly use mine to settle a few old scores - so beware Giano 15:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suspect that the newspapers and other press outlets do have files of obits ready to deploy the day after; on the other hand, obits on some of the more obscure characters (the ones that I like to write up - Johnny Sekka, anyone?) often seem to drip out over the following couple of months, and I suspect that at least some of them are bespoke, written to order after the event. Occasionally, like this chap, you find one of the "big 4" broadsheet newspapers (not that any of them are really "broadsheet" any more) filling a gap where all of the others have already done their bit. And the Guardian and Independent usually give byline credits (the Times and Telegraph rarely do). Tam Dalyell clearly has a lucrative sideline in political obits for the Guardian.
I have suggested it to them before, but the biography wikiproject people really ought to have a team that skims the obits systematically - it is an easy source of content on more-or-less important people (I still have Sven Nykvist and Joe Rosenthal and Walter Hadlee and Raymond Baxter in my "todo" box). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is nothing new here. Read "International recognition at last! Bigger than barnstar" on the user page of Mikkalai. Being cited by The Independent is way more honorable, I dare say. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"Recognition" would be fine, but there is no attribution. Admittedly, I originally lifted the facts from other newspapers, changed to order and the words, and wikified. Perhaps it is my fault, and I have unwittingly steered too close to a common source, but I was surprised at the similarities here. I always add my sources, at least. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
GFDL, man. I know it says you always have to say it came from Wikipedia, but some folks will seriously misunderstand as equating to free information without an author. Geogre 14:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Ouch, Giano, where you say above "are we going to allow that to remain unanswered," I hope you're just giving an example of what an actual coterie/clique would do! As for article length: I like short articles. I think with most FAs, you could write whatever in the final paragraph, because nobody's going to get that far anyway. Maybe that just shows I am the laziest reader on the site. But "my" FAs are too long, every last one of them. They represent desperate cutting and condensing, and they're still too long. The Country Wife might be tolerable, if I remember it right (daren't look). Once I actually came close to tears when I'd just corseted an article to the point of implosion and Geogre immediately added a whole paragraph... a good paragraph, but... As for Dürer's rhino, it's perfect, though I guess I would add, it could be a whisker longer and still be perfect. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC).
Well "my" Matthew Brettingham is pretty short too, but I don't think he would qualify as an FA today so that is probably why - I think Mary Seacole is fine, I wonder if she knew my Hannah perhaps we could introduce them. Can't stay here chatting I've decided to write my obituary - while there is still time. I'm leaving Palazzo Splendido to Bishonen together with it's art collection, of young ladies in tasteful poses, ALoan will get "Palermo Publishing" which prints the art collection and supplies magazines worldwide, and Geogre can have the gold plate effect fountain pen given me the pope, my yacht "La benna pericolosa" (such a pretty name) I bequeath to "other people" on condition they all cruise together; the remiander of my fortune goes to Raul on condition that Cecilia is allowed to choose the main page twice a week, Oh yeah Killer, you can have my dog Porsche, and Girla has my free pass for the ferry to Sicilia. Of course this will is liable to change depending on your treatment of me in the future Giano 17:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Giano, your testament appears very Baroque. You probably guessed what it made me think about... that we still don't have the article The Will (Donne poem). You see, the darned project impairs our mode of thinking! --Ghirla -трёп- 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I saw a recent biography of Donne in the bookshops - now there is an FA that needs to be written. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to avoid single poem articles, except where they're political/cultural turning points, like The Dunciad. The only exception was one I was drafted in for: The Vicar of Bray (song). If we get to do poems, though, you'll never see me on talk pages again, as I'll be a busy, busy litgeek. Geogre 19:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Since we have so many articles about paintings, short stories and songs (and one featured article about a photograph), I don't see why poems should be discriminated against. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh I like that one, we used to have to sing it when I was at school in England, the Vicar of Bray, I mean - do you know "There is a tavern in the town" that's a jolly good one too, another one was "The Millers lovely daughter", God I'm geting quite nostalgic - Thank you Geogre, when are you going to start these pages? Giano 19:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
PS: I wonder who the Millers were, sound like a nice couple, probably had to leave town, with a daughter like that I expect. Giano 19:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, did you sweet little boys ever use to sing Eskimo Nell? I had an English boyfriend once who knew the whole thing by heart... ick. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC).
Nelly had a steamboat/ The steamboat had a bell/ Nellie went to heaven/ The steamboat went to / Hello operator/ Give me number nine/ If you don't connect me, I'll kick you in the/ Behind the refrigerator, there was some broken glass/ Nellie sat upon it and cut up all her/ Ask me no more questions, and I'll tell you no more lies/ If you listen to me, I'll.... I've forgotten any more of it I ever knew. Geogre 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It was "Miss Lucy" in my neighborhood, but the rest is the same. I think I do remember the balance of the jingle, but it will never make Featured Article. Newyorkbrad 15:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Ask me no more questions, I'll tell you no more lies, The boys are in the bathroom, zipping up their Flies are in the meadow, the bees are in the park, Miss Suzie's in the bedroom, Kissing in the DARK DARK DARK!
That was the way it went in my neighborhood. There was a complicated "clap" that went to it, and I still remember how to do it. Senility can be fun... Oh and yes, it was Miss Suzie. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
How....adorable. You mealy-mouthed lot obviously never clicked on my link, or I would have had to get you some smelling salts. Bishonen | talk 20:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC).
Pish-posh. Where are the illustrators when you need them? It's just 19th century goatse. Geogre 20:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
My dear most irritating patronising tone I have sung that in three languages on rugby club tours. Do you want to see the picture of me converting against France Well when I say France...I mean...... Giano 20:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That's real edifying, that is: grown men falling over themselves to prove how boorish they can be in a lady's salon. No contest, you're both very good at it. [/Bishzilla withdraws with delicate shudders, spinning daintily. And don't think she didn't see you on ALoan's page, Giano.]
Look, The Salon! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you are feeling better

--Ideogram 03:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ipse dixit non!

Alas, Jonathan Wild is no longer featured among the French. Oh, well. If the Swedes like him, that will make up for all. Geogre 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Google says that "("Pas de sources ni de Biblio, dommage")" means "No sources in the Biblio, damage," where I would have thought it meant "No sources not in the book, demote," but I have a sneaky suspicion that it means, "No inline sources using my favorite scheme." Geogre 11:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Google is your friend but don't get too friendly. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think "pas...ni..." is a "neither...nor..." construction - no sources nor bibliography. The bibliography was added recently, some time after the nomination for demotion. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Whew! I'm off the hook, at least. I added a sources (Gerald Howson) and even referred a couple of times (Howson) to my sources (Howson and Defoe and David "ot-nay oot-ay right-bay" Nokes). Geogre 13:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"Dommage" expresses regret, "what a pity". So they did like it. Bishonen | talk 19:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC).
Is he any relation to Oscar because I could work him into my next page if he is? - there is a valid connection Giano 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure that dommage can be translated as drat or damm-it. But that's not why I'm here. See below. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"I notified user Filiocht"

Well, it seems that our fine FARC folks are at work some more. This time, it's a Filiocht article to be [[3]]. Geogre 15:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, call the inline citation police. As for the demand for an infobox (which will just repeat the first line of the lead section)... Anyway, I have chopped some of the books and made the fiction section a bit more cursive. It will be FARCed, of course, because it doesn't have enought inline citations. Sigh. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
But the prose is sooooo awful! (Those dirks! They wouldn't know brilliant prose if it bit them in the face.) They can do what they want, but John Dee is, without a question, one of the finest articles on Wikipedia. It's excellent. Geogre 17:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Can anything be done? God I've been here so long, I've a feeling I even voted for it on FAC - how sad is that, or perhaps that was one of Fil's many other brilliant pages, I'll go and check. I suppose this will be one of "our" pages one day, when we are no longer here, condemned to mediocrity by the mediocre - such is life Giano 19:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
We all did, some long time ago. I was a little wet around the ears then, and got a bit snotty about whether it was comprehensive enough. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh God, and I had a "minor quibble" too, and just look at those names, real blasts from the past, Emsworth is still "sort of" about at least, I often wondered about his age though, just as Mrs G seems to have been 36 for some years now, Emsworth is 17, well if that's true that boy should go far. More to the point how long before The Cantos is on the block? Can't someome stop this madness somehow? Fil should never have placed it here, but published it and made a fortune - and he could have done too! - that work of art should not be allowed to decline............Giano 19:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Guys? Ahem. John Dee isn't by Filiocht, it's by User:PRiis. Filiocht merely nominated it. Nobody notified Pete. Of course you know he's away as well. I've just left him a note (e-mail not enabled). Bishonen | talk 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC).
Yes well, we know that of course, and a jolly good editor PRiis was too, we are just having a wallow in nostalgia about dear old Fil - who we all miss, although I'm beginning to think he had the right idea Giano 21:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
We've all had that thought. Paul August is the only one to make good on it, although he tells me he will be back when the month of exile is over. My mistake on PRiis. It's a really strong article, and, at the time, I didn't know how strong. It's since then that I've read more about those weird mathgeeks of the 16th and 17th centuries and seen how devout they were (and weird, but that goes with the mathgeek part). Geogre 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I will be ... considering my position ... once MS is finished. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

friendly advice

I see your Giano's unblock. The matter is being actively discussed on WP:AN/I with lots of support of the block. It'd be very wise to, at least, meake a comment informing about your decission. -- Drini 23:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh... a comment? I've written a fairly elaborate comment on Doc's page. Is anything else required? Bishonen | talk 23:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC).
Well, since other people BEASIDES Doc were commenting on ANI, it's only polite to inform at the admins noticeboard about it. -- Drini 23:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I was about to say the very same thing. (I have posted on User talk:Doc glasgow, already, by the way.) -- ALoan (Talk) 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Wish you had been paying attention to IRC. Plus I wish you'd taken a moment to discuss unblocking a friend of yours before simply out-of-process doing it. At least post to WP:AN/I that he's unblocked. Because any casual reader will think he's still blocked. Bastiq▼e demandez 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
IRC is distasteful to me lately, for good reason. I'm surely not obliged to frequent it; many users never do, including admins. Bishonen | talk 00:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC).
It's not out of process to unblock a friend. It's out of process to unblock yourself. I haven't investigated the case otherwise, but it's not the friendship that makes an unblock right or wrong. (Off to AN/I.) Geogre 00:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
IRC is not Wikipedia. Let's get that established. IRC is not Wikipedia, is not mandatory for Wikipedians, is not preferred for Wikipedians, is not helpful for Wikipedians. Secondly, Giano said that the blog was horrible. Well, that's misplaced, but it's not exactly a personal attack. I could say that Slashdot is horrible without attacking Commander Taco. I could say that Wikipedia is terrible without attacking Jimbo Wales. Cool off blocks are not ever, ever, ever successful in their proclaimed intent, and Doc seems to want to replicate the mistakes of Tony Sidaway in that. If you want to block for "civility," then lodge an RfC. Don't just decide without input. Geogre 01:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


I am certainly not a friend of Giano (intersected with him only a few times) but I endorse the unblock (also left a warning to Giano) abakharev 01:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. Bishonen | talk 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC).

Acceptable behaviour

Bish, Did you mean to give people the impression that the way Giano expressed what he had to say was acceptable? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ben: I wasn't aiming for impressions in that respect: the impression I was after was that it's important a user under arbitration should get to state his unhampered views on the matter being arbitrated. On the evidence page in particular. (Nandesuka has since put it better on ANI: "blocking someone who is currently in the middle of an arbitration case is not the best thing to be doing. If it was, I can promise you that there is at least one person recently active on this same RFArb who I would have been blocking for 3.6 minute stretches every 4 minutes. For fun. Until he cried. But I held off because it's an arbitration case, and because the arbitrators get to determine what is "too far" in that context.") I tried to explain this in my original post to Doc here: "I find it inappropriate to block the nominal focus of an RFAr for evidence added on the evidence page." That must have been unclear, since Doc translated it as being about Giano having enoughtime to respond to the RfAr: "3 hours is not disrupting his ability to respond to the RfAr - and as you say he's 'nominal' so that reason is pure wikilawyering." And met my offer of further explanation with a disinvitation to post on his page to "defend myself", because he was "done" with me. I'm just as well pleased to abide by that, considering the misunderstandings of my reasoning (e. g. by Mackensen: "Excuse me? Is policy in abeyance on the evidence page?"). My fault, I expect--I do try to be clear, but I guess I fail a lot, and this was a complicated issue to disentangle.
Anyway, Ben, you probably didn't just mean to ask for what impression I meant to give people, but also whether I think Giano did express himself acceptably? Yes, I do think so. Compare Rebecca, who put it well: "Giano's response may have been harsh, but the material he was responding to was a downright vile personal attack on him. It was hardly uncalled for."[4]. Tactfully, no; acceptably, yes. What was that foul self-indicting Wikipedia-Review type rant doing in the Evidence section in the first place? Why was the ArbCom's only comment on the person who wrote it, and sanctioned pasting it there, a "Thank you"? Giano had every right to ask. Incidentally, if anything's wikilawyering, it's justifying that blog post being right there in the RFAr evidence (its presence sanctioned by Kelly and implemented by Cyde), by saying it was in some sense "really" posted outside the wiki, so it doesn't count. Bah. Bishonen | talk 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC).
Giano didn't only criticise Kelly, but also the arbcom and Jimbo. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No he did not, read it again (I would have thought everyone here could recite it by heart by now) it says "Are we truly to believe the arbcom are so thankful for that, and Jimbo was ever so taken with her". The arbcom having read the evidence are now voting to thank her - so it is a very valid question. Kelly always implied she was a friend of Jimbo's. Good for her, that must be very pleasant for them both. However, I can't imagine Jimbo was particularly impressed by that blog either. If you actually read the blog, not just what was pasted to wiki, there is a lot of other information. I was also commenting on the blog. I don't imagine Jimbo is much impressed by me or many others concerned with whole rotten case either, but it's all a bit late for those concerns now. Now this is actually Bishonen's page, so my further views will be posted on my own page, if I decide to post them that is, because I too am heartily sick of this whole case, it is just a pity reference to that blog was ever permitted as evidence, especially if people do not in fact want to discuss it or hear concerned parties views on it. Giano 08:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Are we truly to believe the arbcom are so thankful for that, and Jimbo was ever so taken with her?
To me, this says 1. either the arbcom's judgement is faulty, or their thanks are insincere; 2. Jimbo has been making decisions with his heart, not his head. I don't know how much truth is contained in the content, but wrapping the whole thing in scatological language means that people don't react to the content, they react to the way it was delivered. Doc glasgow believes that the intent of the post was to hurt people. I think he's wrong, but I can see why he believes that way. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the unblock (I was in bed hours before anyone even noticed) it now seems we are not allowed to comment on off-wiki blogs, even those that are nothing but a tissue of lies and insults about wikipedians. Kelly still has her fans, I wonder how many of them saw her "Bitch from Hell" remark on wherever it was and were too frightened of her to even raise an eyebrow. Just for once I would love to be listening to the wittering and twittering on IRC, but alas no time - travelling today - so you won't have to watch out nervously for my edits. Sorry if I've caused you all embarrassment but it needed saying, and as usual it was me that had to open my great mouth. It always amazes me how some people post provocative statements and then become surprised when they provoke. Of course the link and pasting from the blog should never have been allowed to remain there, amazing how quick though a comment against it can be removed - truly amazing - anyway this particular Prima-donna has to pas-de-deux to the aeroport - and you "lying Prima-donnas" and assorted "female dogs" have an encyclopedia to write. Lots of love. See you soon. Giano 08:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll be back with some distinctions, Ben. Giano, since there's a misapprehension there, I think I should point out that "bastard bitch from hell" was Tony Sidaway's summing-up of myself on IRC, not Kelly Martin's. Doesn't affect your main point about lies and insults too much I guess, as there have been amiabilites from her as well, also on the restricted admin channel (which I thought was to be purely used for coordinating admin actions, but I've learned differently). Acceptable behavior? Free pass? You be the judge. Have a safe trip. Bishonen | talk 10:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC).
Hi Giano, I'd still like a response to my question, when you've got time. But I'll chuck in a bonus question while you're here. Do you think you were blocked because of what you said, or because of the way you said it? Regards, Ben Aveling 09:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me toss in a thought about the consensus on AN/I. If people had not seen the blog entry on the /Evidence page or not seen the whole sorry state of affairs, then all they would have seen is, apparently, this comment out of nowhere making hash out of another user's hobby. That would be shocking. However, in the context, it was pretty understandable (as I've explained a number of times). The thing is, that was followed by two inappropriate actions that our outside of the realm of interpretation: Doc Glasgow removed the comment without being a clerk, and then Cyde redacted the blog without being a clerk, and all of this when all had been sternly warned by Fred that no one was allowed to remove Tony Sidaway's ... excessive?... threads on the /Workshop. However, the /Evidence page is not just any page, and Doc Glasgow presented it on AN/I, where evidence shows are pretty much never cited. (After all, when some of the trolls have gone ape during their procedures, has anyone quoted those on AN/I and asked people to agree to a block? It's unheard of.) The readers, therefore, would have had to be already familiar and exceptionally attentive to have offered an honest and considered opinion. Geogre 15:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It was my own fault entirely, I hadn't realised Cyde had pasted it in just for decoration and the Arbs and clerks left it there for purely ornamental purposes, I stupidly thought it was considered bona fide and therefore needed repudiating, I don't know about you Geogre but I failed the audition to be the Sugar Plum Fairy, and one thing I am never accused of is lying, a little direct with the truth perhaps. Besides which I had no idea it was illegal to comment on a non-wiki site that was being economical with the truth. Giano 15:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Acceptable bee

Nectar! El_C 05:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Highly acceptable, Commandante! Bishonen | talk 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC).

Gingerbread

Home-baked gingerbread for Bish.

Thanks for reverting my talkpage last night! up+land 18:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yum yum. OG isn't getting any. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC).

Hey

Hey again. Good to see you. As you can see, I'm back. :) Not gonna be around much, I'll pop up every few days. Anyway, who is Thewolfstar, and how come they were blocked so quickly? I didn't think Imagination debridee (or whatever the name was) was causing that much trouble. -- infinity0 14:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, Inf! Nice to see you back, I hope the exams went well. Oh, that wasn't quickly for a Thewolfstar sock; on the conrary, I'd been asked to block as soon as it appeared, and had been holding off and watching. This is a permabanned user who has exhausted the community's patience—one of our few true community bans. Please see Wikipedia:List of banned users and this WP:ANI thread. The edit on Talk:Anarchism that I replied to was a wolfster classic, along with other indications. Incidentally, I don't do CheckUser on the wolf sockfarm any more; she's exhausted CheckUser's patience, too, and they've told me it's too obvious for them. When you know her (as to my cost I do), it certainly is. As she knows, she can appeal a community ban directly to the ArbCom or Jimbo, instead of continually creating these transparent sockpuppets. Best, Bishonen | talk 15:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC).
Plus, abusive administrator bishonen is widely known to be rouge. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, ok, well, I trust that 20-30 people are right in this matter. Has User:RJII been a problem with sockpuppets? Lots of new editors have popped up whose attitudes are very similar to his, but I haven't had to time to analyse them carefully.
There's something (POV-fanaticism) which I wish more people knew about on wikipedia, but I have no time to actively inform people about it. Do you know where I can post something that a LOT of people will read? -- infinity0 16:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
A lot, no. I don't think such a place exists. I'd suggest WP:AN, though that's only good for reaching admins. If you're more after catching the ear of noobs, well.... I don't think it can be done. I suspect RJII has in fact been a sock problem. That's kind of the RJII thing, isn't it? But I don't really know. It's not a voice I have a natural alert for. Well, since it's a collective, who does? *If* RJII is a problem, it's obviously going to be a much more intricate problem than the so-recognizable wolfster who's always in the same place, and always soapboxing uselessly on the talkpage rather than editing. (Why don't you just use your own website for that, Maggie? Is the general reader ever going to look at the talkpage? Think about it.) I can't say it tempts me to become more familiar with RJII. There seem to already be about as many banned/blocked/sanctioned/problem users on my plate as it has room for. Bishonen | talk 00:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

Sorry

It was your first comment + the patronizing "Oh goodie" and subsequent from Geogre that led to my little snap. I apologize. It was, as Sandy suggested, meant more as a defence of her than anything else. We can rename the page if the title seems a put-down. It's just a tool to aid with FAR and the title hasn't been changed since it was compiled in Disco King's user space.

"Idosyncratic compared to other FAs" is a better way to put it. The Wiki trend has been to emphasize the point-and-click ahead of academic practices. Your pages seem well-referenced to me. Marskell 16:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Bishonen | talk 00:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC).
I moved the two articles BTW. Marskell 12:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, I just wanted to sincerely apologize again for my haste. Marskell has mentioned before that I was risking burnout, and he's probably right: I was burning the candle at both ends. The oversight happened because of my haste, and because I'm sure Marskell was sensitive to how much work I've been doing. I looked at the refs, saw three, then looked for inotes in edit mode, and neglected to even look at the prose because I was trying to finish my watchlist and pack. Anyway, I see the articles have now been moved off the list. Thanks for making those other editor changes: I had to go through all 400+ articles to build a spreadsheet of Projects and authors to notify if/when they come up at FARC, and it wasn't always clear to me. If you see other changes, can you let me know, because then I can be sure to update my spreadsheet as well? Best, Sandy 03:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Shucks, Sandy. I hope you don't let the work get on top of you, but keep in mind that Wikipedia's supposed to be something you do for fun. You know, like a hobby? That's some impressive spreadsheet you've got. I can certainly understand that it's better any moves or changes to it are done by you--just look at me fumbling about in there at random. Pathetic. Er, I noticed one thing, actually. User:Ganymead's Elizabethan theatre project--under "Theatre"--the three articles listed there, Augustan drama, Colley Cibber, and Restoration comedy, aren't Elizabethan at all--nowhere close--they're 18th century, and I'm pretty sure Ganymead doesn't mention them. He shouldn't, anyway. (He's on wikibreak, I hope he comes back soon, nicest guy you'll ever meet.) Also, incidentally, Augustan drama is mainly by the diligent Geogre, User:NicholasTurnbull who's credited didn't have anything to do with it. Best, Bishonen | talk 03:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
Awww, shucks, Bish, you're so sweet! I'm back, at least for a little while. Not sure when I may go gallivanting off again...especially if my search for a new job works out. Greetings to all! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hah! I have called teh Ganymead from the vasty deep! I'm brilliant! Bishonen | talk 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC).
I wonder what would happen if you exclaimed "Arise, ye subterranean winds!" a la Prospero...*Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It's obviously a lot safer not to try that one. Bishonen | talk 09:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
The notifications are just a courtesy; something I'm doing in an effort to cast a wider net, hoping to increase the chances of finding someone interested in working on an article. When I searched the 400+ articles still on the citations list compiled by DiscoKing, I added any relevant Project that I was aware of or could find via the Council Directory, but I also included any WikiProject that showed up in the article's "What links here" (hence, Elizabethan theatre on those articles). I'd rather over than under-notify, on the chance that someone might pitch in and help on an article, so I included even Projects found in the links that didn't make sense. Is it likely anyone reading the Elizabethan theatre project would help provide citations? I'll switch Augustan drama—thanks. I shouldn't be promising to take on yet another task, but as time allows, I will read completely through every nomination as articles come up, so that another John Dee/PRiis won't be missed. The official notification is the talk page FAR template; optimally, FAs are being watched by their original authors so they won't deteriorate, so original authors should be aware even if I miss one. Regards, Sandy 04:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just getting ready to thank you.

So thanks, already. :) You are unquestionably one of my favorite users and if I can ever return all the favors, please let me know. All the best, Lucky 6.9 02:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


Boast

Check out my latest image! Unashamed parental boast! Giano 17:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL Personal attacks sem to be becoming easier and easier these days [5] all these sensitive little flowers. Giano 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I just saw that removal, that was uninhibitedly strange. Don't tell me that's your number 3? Is the whole family as crazy as you are? Bishonen | talk 18:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC).
No they are not all mine. Giano 19:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, everybody knows you're a good Catholic, what do you expect people to think? Bishonen | talk 02:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

Editor Review

Hey, I've recently put myself up for the Editor Review process. With the (seeming) end of the Vaughan-gate mess, I've been back to normal editing for the last while and wanted some outside opinions as to what kind of job I'm doing; if I'm on the right track, if there's anything I can do to improve, etc. If you have some free time, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look and leave me some feedback! Oh, and I'm not sure what the "bitch from hell" comment is about, but from what I've seen your one of our best editors here! --Chabuk 03:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Chabuk, I'll try to find the time to review, but not sure I'll make it. I've kept away from "Vaughan-gate", which seems an unpalatable mess indeed, so I don't know the ins and outs of it. Bishonen | talk 12:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Not a problem, we're all busy. Just so you know though, the review itself isn't about "Vaughan-gate" it's more just about my general editing style, since I've tried to move past the other issue. --Chabuk 20:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Tweetie pie

Thanks for the little bird, I just love it! Giano 20:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, glad you like it! ‎ Bishonen | talk 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

I wonder if you would appreciate Bamse the St Bernard? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes. He had a free pass! Bishonen | talk 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

Now, now.

It will probably be moved to Bamse (dog) or something similarly banal. Bamse seems to be something quite different. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly ALoan, and I hate to tell you this, I fear it will be Bamse the dog, but that page does not mention "free passes" so is not so interesting at all Giano 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, bum. I feel a merge coming on. Which way, though... -- ALoan (Talk) 18:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Civility please ALoan! Such language afronts me, you don't want to be banned do you? You know the answer very well it has to be, sadly, the banal choice. Giano 18:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Civility, my arse, as I understand the members of the Royle Family say. I have been given carte blanche to merge, and have seized the initiative by doing so at my article (but perhaps I need a dot after "St"?). Carpe canem, as the motto goes in the House of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If he was a tragic poet, then he might have used hemistichs. Dull, I know, and a hemistich never pushed an enemy sailor into the ocean while bringing the drunken sailors back to their ships, but neither did it die mysteriously. Geogre 18:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
He did comprise four non-metrical feet. Wøøf. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy

Hi. I notice that you seem to have a particular interest in concealing the above editor's long history of abuse from the Wikipedia community. This is a particular concern, given that DreamGuy has now returned after being caught out using sockpuppets - and has already started abusing myself and others exactly as he did before. I'd suggest, given recent accusations, that your continued defense of this person is probably something you should look at very very carefully. --Centauri 06:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Got to love it when editors with harassment campaigns make their threats clear and open like this... Of course the only "abuse" is my pointing out his abuse. DreamGuy 06:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You picked the wrong guy to harrass this time DreamGuy. I won't be intimidated by your histrionics, like all your previous victims. --Centauri 07:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you're referring to, Centauri. I'm not "defending" DreamGuy, I'm merely enforcing basic decency on Wikipedia. Are you saying DreamGuy's revert of your continuing edits to his userpage amount to him harassing you... ? I sought advice on the admins' irc channel before touching the page, myself, and got 100% spontaneous reactions that it's inappropriate for old adversaries of DGs, with an obviously hostile agenda, to be adding this tag at all. Also that it's unsuitable for anybody to keep re-adding it when the sockpuppetry wasn't even proven. Also that it's in any case wrong for anybody to do it when any puppetry was not a present threat, was not some ongoing outbreak of incessant sock creation, or, in a word, was old. Shall I go on? Your and English Rose's edit summaries to your reversions sometimes refer vaguely to other things about DreamGuy than the Victrix case--some sort of generalized "abuse" (could that be because DG's article edits thwart you?). "A stack of evidence is against DreamGuy and he is aware of it", "do not attempt to conceal this editor's abusive history - particularly as it now continuing from exactly where it left off"--you both can't be referring to the old Victrix story with those statements, can you? There's obviously no "stack of evidence" or any "continuing" about that, so you're both talking about something else. But the tag isn't for something else! In particular, it's not for generalized vengeance against a POV opponent. You are abusing the tag. If I were you, I'd look "very very carefully" at your own actions, and so should English Rose. (Hello, ER, I know you're sure to read this.) So, most especially, should Gene Poole, who is about to get blocked for his reckless accusations pertaining to Gzornenplatz/Wik. If any of you think it's open season on DreamGuy because of the Victrix affair, you're mistaken. Finally I remind you, Centauri, for the nth time, that you can stop saying CheckUser "confirmed" that case. Have you genuinely forgotten the CheckUser finding of "likely" (as opposed to "confirmed"), or are you just shameless? Bishonen | talk 09:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
When I read that comment, my blood just boiled. I’ve taken a few minutes to calm down a bit. Right, “There's obviously no "stack of evidence" or any "continuing" about that”, oh yes there isn’t just that him and Victrix edited at exactly the same time, went away for the same periods, used the same language, edited the same articles and reverted so that one could avoid 3RR. You’re right, no "stack of evidence". You carry on defending Mr. DreamGuy for the next few years, cause your very good it. Well done. Englishrose 09:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Bishonen, you can bluster and threaten me all you like, but the fact of the matter is, it is you who are actively defending an editor who treats Wikipedia's community standards with utter contempt. It isn't me who accuses people of being "fucked up" and "psychotic", who blanks whole random sections of article content then describes it as "fucked up spam" in the edit summary, who tells people to seek "psychiatric help" or accuses everyone who disagrees with them of "harrassing" them, or of "impersonating" them. It was - and is DreamGuy. He was doing it six months ago, and he is doing it today. Allow me to spell that for you: T O D A Y. Do you want me to provide you with the links? So, looks to me like you better start "enforcing basic decency rules", rather than just using the phrase as a club to attack me with. You really need to wake up and smell the roses. --Centauri 02:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I for one want you to provide the links from today, yes. Only, if you mean links to him saying the people edit-warring on his page are harrassing him, I won't need those: that's just true. But links to all these other behaviors from today would be good, yeah. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Favour?

Since taking Sicila to London, she has been rather conspicuous by her sophistication on her return to Sicily, the other goats have begun to notice

Can you do me a favour I am stuck in the wilds on slow and sgahy dial up, with a goat chewing the frayed wire, can you go to [6] then follow the link to the proper site (I can't even begin to download it) then find the photograph of Hannah's studio, and upload it for me (it will be 140 years old so PD etc) I haven't seen it, but know it is there, and it sounds just what I need. I'll love you forever if you do. Giano 06:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes, ping, help?

I can't seem to... it's a .pdf, I don't seem able to find any links on it, or save any images from it either. I don't have the latest Adobe Reader. I suppose it's the photo of the studio by Julia Margaret Cannon from 1871, on page 20? Note that there is also a photo portrait of Hannah by JMC, also 1871, also on p. 20, don't you want that as well? Not that I'm able to get either of them. Bunchofgrapes, help! Well, you know, Giano, BoG prolly just went to bed. :-( Bishonen | talk 08:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

BoG is always in bed when he is needed, he must be very lazy spending all this time asleep when we are all up an d about working our butts off, I dodn't know there was another photo, yes I would like it, but I can only download the introductary image and that took two hours, the local goats in the treadmill just won't peddle fast enough, and Sicilia has become too grand for that since she went to London and bough her new Jimmy Chou, must do something about that goat she is getting ideas above her station. Giano 08:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
These? Image:Hannah de Rothschild's studio, Mentmore 1871.jpg & Image:Hannah de Rothschild by Julia Margaret Cameron, 1871.jpg. (Could you please check if I choose the appropriate license, thanks) --Van helsing 08:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Gosh that is brilliant thank you very much - I hope that is the right Hannah, she seems to have changed a lot though she is supposed to be overweight and very plain! Thanks I can get back to work on the oage now. Giano 09:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well... looking at her biceps, I still wouldn’t want her to get angry at me. --Van helsing 09:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No I think you are right, compare the two images [7] together, I does appear to be the same woman sperated by a few years. It must have been quite a risque foto by the standards of the day. Giano 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aphra

There is supposed to be something on Swedish radio (P1) about Aphra Behn in a few minutes: [8]. up+land 16:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I wasn't home for that. Moa Matthis is all right, I reckon. Did you listen to it? Bishonen | talk 20:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
Sort of - I was doing something else at the same time, and I don't really know enough about AB to have an informed opinion of Moa Matthis's interpretation. (You can listen to the program by downloading the soundfile at the SR website.) up+land 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Article on FAC

There is a marvelous article on FAC that all you literary types might enjoy. Check out Natalie Clifford Barney. Simply fascinating article! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

!Votes in RFAs

Hi, SOADLuver, welcome to Wikipedia. I see from your contributions list that you recently !voted in no less than 17 RFAs in 50 minutes, offering opinions on the candidates. That seems very quick. Did you find you were able to do a sufficient amount of research on their editing history in that short time? Regards, Bishonen | talk 06:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

Haha my votes would be much more spread out but when I was going to vote 2 days ago someone on my IP was blocked preventing me from doing so.I just now got around to placing my votes/opinions on RfA. SOADLuver 06:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I see, thanks for explaining. Bishonen | talk 10:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

The Rover, line 1, line 2, line 3....

See what you think of what has been done to AB's The Rover (play). Myself, I'm not happy with our trying to take over from MasterPlots, but I don't know if we're heading that way anyhow. Geogre 09:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I know! I saw it, it's on my watchlist, too. No, Im not happy. :-( I think the stub that was--the present intro, at least last time I looked--was fine. But I don't think there's much to be done, unless possibly by someone prepared to expand the page in another way. It's a really difficult thing to complain of tactfully. I tried to figure something when I saw it yesterday (you know how Bishzilla's delicate sensibilities come to fore in these tricky cases) but I had to give up.
The single-play articles of the period are mostly in a poor state anyway, only the 1911 author pages are worse. (/me is ashamed of self, prefers to work among the ice floes and other dangerous elements these days.) If this is just the beginning of a similar plotification of the entire period, though, I guess we'll have to send in Ze Ogre. Or if they get to one of your nice shapely play pages, or, remote contingency, one of the few FAs. Anyway, if you have an idea for an approach to the contributor, I will certainly back you up as best I can. Bishonen | talk 10:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

We're in accord and sympathy, then, because I, too, grappled with how to complain tactfully. What was added was legitimate, if... shady. Why summarize a plot, of all things? Not, of course, that I haven't wished for plot synopses with some of the Restoration plays where all the characters have the same name (but with vowel endings sometimes for the girls) and minor chars walk in without motivation to monkey about, but the plotting is more or less the least important thing for the political comedies (and that's all of AB, IMO). There may be critical plot actions that need to be talked about, if they're thematically important, but... Well, I think of what would happen with a plotting of Pasquin.

The way to overcome it, I suppose, is the way that we can overcome the 1911 dumps and (much worse than them) the Short Literary Encyclopedia dumps: overwrite with legitimate expansion. That means the dreary world of deep diving into each play, and that's asking quite a bit from harried people who don't get their grading done on time (me). Geogre 11:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

NOT private webhost?

Is there anything the user is doing? Seriously. I know Tups likes the work, but I see so little interaction with any other article or users that I wonder if it's not a void account, or right on the verge of it. Still, it's been a long time since I've seen such flat sense pumped up so high by big phrases. (And I only liked Catch-22. Did you go to the PO yet?) Geogre 17:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bish has perhaps been exaggerating my part in this... But he has written a few articles on German writers and other things unrelated to baseball, pokemon, Stargate or Ashlee Simpson. (BTW, Bish, I'm sure Fred Chess would appreciate any comments you may have on this peer review of Swedish literature.) up+land 05:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
He's seemingly committed to ceasing all work while he runs the courtroom he's erected on his talk page. Appropriate use of Wikipedia, or of a user's talk page? No. Less harm done by leaving him there to talk to himself, as opposed to forcing his hand in some other direction? Maybe? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Harm can only be either action by the aggrieved or by loss of action of the aggrieved. For the former, we all snort in unison. For the latter, what benefit was there? If any, I agree with you. It's just above zero, seems to me, but not quite to a whole number. Geogre 18:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I live at the PO ! Great, good music, thank you so much! 3 times Billy Bragg, wonderful! Bishonen | talk 00:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (listening to "Corinna, Corinna" here )
And ceramics and fob? There are some serious gems in the music, there. Nothing I've gotten recently stands up to Free Wheelin' or Bringing It All Back Home, but how could it? Geogre 02:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are. :-) It seeems... wrong, somehow, but I'm using the Skype headset to listen to them, it has fine sound quality! (Unlike the laptop speakers, obviously.) I see an Early Onion Pottery artifact, indeed. But that's not a fob, it's a fridge magnet. Just as well, as nobody needs better than the Carolina Blue Basketball keyring that I have. You realize how your memory of it got vague, don't you? Those things were in transit for ten days. That may be a record for us (not a good one). It's real nice that they arrived at last ! Bishonen | talk 02:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
I still find my keys by feeling for the basketball. I'm just glad that the grail didn't get shattered like the Merovingian blood line in transit. I had clever bubble wrap for the occasion and some hopes. The BB peters out a bit on disk 2, but disk 1 can't be beat. "You poor take courage/ You rich take care!" You've got the song of our times (again) now: "Masters of War?" We can refresh my memory tomorrow and use the headset for something else. Have you checked your e-mail? Geogre 02:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
And an .avi file of an excellent sniffing performance!

Bishonen | talk 02:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Re

Thanks Bishonen! I appreciate the kind words. Do you have any advice about being a newbie admin? Cheers, —Khoikhoi 01:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! :-) Bishonen | talk 02:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
Confer! Geogre 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Fear the shiny new buttons! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't tempt me! Giano 10:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Block Giano! Bishonen | talk 11:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
Oh, sure, blocking Giano is a rite of passage for new admins and all, but I say, if you want to be really bold, delete WP:IAR in the spirit of WP:IAR! Geogre 11:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Speak softly while driving your Sherman tank. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A Favour

Can you delete this for me Image:NeilPtimrose.jpg I didn't spot the non-valid copyright thing in time before uploading. Thanks Giano 10:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Redlinked. Bishonen | talk 11:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
Thank you little honey bea Giano 11:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Important new page: as one interested in English literature you will be relieved and delighted to know that the author of "The Kisses That Never Were Given" now has a much belated biography on Wikipedia. Yes I have undertaken this major work myself, if you wish to add something stressing the authors importance in the development of literature I would ne very grateful. Giano 12:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

thewolfstar (agian)

i believe wolfy is back at anarchism under the guise of the user "doctor without suspenders". i'm not sure how to properly report shit like this so i figured i would just tell you. piece, Blockader 19:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC) oops, i just read you request not to work at the top of the page so i will take this to someone else. sorry, Blockader 19:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's ok, blocking the wolfster isn't what I call work. But you'll have to tell me what the indications are, use e-mail if you like. (Avoid teaching her how we identify her.) Best, Bishonen | talk 20:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

London history template

Hi, thanks for your message on my talk page. I am indeed responsible for the {{London history}} template, and although it appears to have been on my watchlist, I seem to have completely ignored it ever since I created it. Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention - I've posted a comment on the talk page, and hopefully we can figure out a resolution. Regards, DJR (T) 14:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In regards to your fire article (it's looking quite nice, BTW), have you seen either of Liza Picard's books Elizabeth's London or Restoration London? While I don't have Restoration London, I have the one on Elizabethan London and it is quite fascinating. Picard attempts to give a perspective of London outside of the usual observances of the upper class. I certainly think that Restoration London might have a great deal on the fire and how life was affected by it. Certainly if you have anything you think I might be able to check on in Elizabeth's London, I am humbly at your service. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I'll take a look. I do have Roy Porter, London: A Social History, also. But I dislike the callous way modern social historians tend to say what a pity it was the horrible suburbs didn't all burn down. "Burning down was what they needed", writes Porter. How hard is it, if you actually try, to imagine what a disaster it was for the poor to lose their tarpaper shacks and be "encouraged" (by Charles II, no less) to leave London and go on the road, with what they could carry? The lack of imagination of the well-fed. I hope your Picard is nicer. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC).
OK, I've ordered Restoration London from amazon.co.uk.

Bishonen | talk 22:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

BTW, thanks for the revert on Mandan. Those damn Welsh tinhats, ugh! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I do rather enjoy Picard. She talks about all types of things like streets, building codes, how hospitals operated, sanitation. Marvelously obscure topics that Pepys and Evelyn would have avoided like the Plague (pun intended). I have her book on Georgian London and it's just as marvelous. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that that your big fire is blazing nicely, would you like some thinking man's crumpets to toast on it? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm changing my mind about Porter these days. He really was the last committed Enlightenment historian. I have little patience for the "sacks of potatoes" histories, but Porter was too positive. He could be first class, top notch, but he seemed to revert to the old Verities, like enlightenment and the march of science over superstition. Relativism is an ennervating plague, but positivism is intellectual constipation, and no one should have to make such a Hobson's choice. Maybe Pat Rogers is the best we have (despite his telling me, "I'd have done it (Grub Street: A Portrait of a Literary Subculture) better if I had it to do again"). One doesn't have to abandon all standards to count a life for a life, and one doesn't have to put on oiled leather boots to believe that there are better and worse historical developments. Geogre 00:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Damn, but that's fine prose. I hope someone is writing this down. Oh, never mind. Geogre 00:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I read that as "Hobsbawm's Choice" [/me falls into contemplation at the thought.] Bishonen | talk 00:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC).
I like Hobsbawm. I know that people have aimed a Tommy gun at him, but they can't all be Plumbs. Geogre 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for participating in my RfA. The nomination was unsuccessful, but I intend to continue with my support of Wikipedia. In the meantime, and I mean this sincerely, I would very much like to find some way that you and I could get past our previous dispute, and be able to work together more harmoniously in the future. If you would like to contact me, on or off wiki, to have a good faith discussion, I am open to it. --Elonka 09:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how we can work together more harmoniously when we've never worked together at all. We're not interested in the same subjects. If your concern is that I shouldn't oppose your next RFA, I'm afraid that's too soon for me to decide. But I'll certainly take a fresh look when/if it comes round. That's the best I can do. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

User:Bishzilla

What's the purpose of this other account you just created? Is it a "doppelganger" to prevent impersonation, or will it be used for specialized tasks in the future, or something else? Scobell302 14:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing she's going to use it to destroy Tokyo. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[/Bishzilla takes the little Bunchofgrapes out of her pocket and destroys him good]I haven't decided yet. The account was originally created by an unknown, with obvious malicious intent, in February 2006; it had made one edit, one that mimicked me, and I indefblocked it. Yesterday a bureaucrat (Taxman) erased the account at my request, and I registered it, my first thought being indeed that I wanted to prevent recreation and further impersonation. But I have some thoughts of using it for special purposes, also. I often use the nick in jest on IRC ((/Bishzilla destroys Tokyo) and people who hang on IRC sometimes address me by it. Maybe I'll use it for lighter types of editing. Is there a problem? Bishonen | talk 15:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC).
One of my pages User:Giano/Images I shall want of things I want has disapeared - any ideas where it had gone? Giano 18:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
User talk:Giano/Images I shall want? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well that's a daft place to put things! Giano 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Adulation

Love ya, Bish! Bo-Lingua 18:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen | talk 22:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

The Relapse

May I be the first to congratulate you here? Newyorkbrad 00:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right, I wasn't aware till it got mentioned on IRC just now. Thank you! Bishonen | talk 00:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

Congrats, Bishonen. It's been a while since I dropped in, and I'm glad to see that you're still contributing great things! Take care. — David Remahl 00:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, GREAT to see you, David! Bishonen | talk 01:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC).
Bishonen, don't let time on the main page equal constant worry. I'm going to bet that, like Orrmulum, you invite fewer vandals than usual. (And I'm still thinking of beefing up Charlotte Charke, despite her objections.) Geogre 02:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Most flattering, Geogre. No need to tell me nobody wants to read it, I'm aware of it. Yes, I expect there will be fewer vandals. Bishonen | talk 11:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC).
That means you think I'm insulting myself, too, for working on something nobody wants to read? I don't think I said or implied that. I don't worry if vandals don't feel like reading it. Once that segment of "nobody" is cut off, we're left with the people who don't want to read anything they haven't heard of, and I don't mourn them, either, and the people who are intellectually curious. They do want to read it, but they're not going to scribble in crayon on it. You had to work to make that an insult, I think. It's a great, scholarly article, and we should take pride in not writing about "Lost (TV series)" and "24 (TV series)" and thus being vandal magnets. What is and is not a vandal magnet, beyond pop topics, is having a title that is prone to dirty jokes. The Relapse is safe, but The Country Life wasn't. Finally, if it sounds like a subject they have to take in school, they'll scribble, so "Physics" or "Algebra" would get big scribbles. Geogre 11:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Er, I wouldn't have assumed nobody was interested in Ormulum, except that you've told me that was the case, you know. Anyway, the Relapse is getting vandalised plenty, so sucks to you! Going out, bbl. Bishonen | talk 11:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC).
Still, either I was insulting myself, or I wasn't insulting you. I looked at the history of Relapse, and it's getting salt and vinegar from the bored schoolboys, which is plenty. The article on Orrmulum is more exciting than the Orrmulum itself, but that's my point: our articles are interesting, but the vandals get out their spraypaint when there is a word they like or a pop thing they have recently sucked. Geogre 12:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hah! See, people are interesting in reading it! Silly Bishy, you write too well for people to ignore your articles. ALERT ALERT ALERT Bishonen was wrong about something! Gee, this is unusual - we should have an annual party - the anniversary of the BwasW incident. I'll bring pate maison, what is everyone else bringing? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Argh? Killah confused! [/Bishzilla tries in vain to catch the colibri. Is frustrated.]. That Bishonen plenty get stuff wrong, it's teh noble Bishzilla who knows all! Now proud separate account! You, Killah, you bringing info about the Great Fire and the Great Plague, arrgghhh? [/Bishzilla thumps chest perfunctorily.] Bishzilla 22:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC) .

Darling 'zilla, I have not been to the library. I have been battling bronchitis and - get this - I was bitten by a Brown recluse which is, I have to say, not recommended. I have other excuses, do you want them too? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, your connection does suck! Bishonen | talk 22:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC).
  • If you were bitten by a brown recluse, you have my sympathies. It's a long, agonizing process, and I hope you spotted it very quickly and got treated. Horrible, horrible bite -- and far too few people know just how deadly it is. (For you Europeans: the brown recluse is one of the reasons your ancestors thought a trip to America was a death sentence or a punishment worse than the stocks. It is one of the most agonizing and dangerous insects in the world.) Geogre 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I was, and thank you. I have a mild bite, though, so it hasn't been that bad. I had Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever once and that was much worse. I don't recommend either, even for serious thrill seekers. I did seek medical diagnosis and received that, which is how I know what it is, but there really isn't much they can do for treatment (I was told basic care and to watch for infection and necrosis.) KillerChihuahua?!? 10:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've known two people who ended up with highly necrotic bites. I see from the article that those are rare, that most bites just give a boo-boo. I'm glad that's the case. The bad bites are very bad. Geogre 12:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Coo - look what happens when I take a few days off! Congratulations! A lovely article. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! About the fire thing, I'm beginning to wonder if my posts on Talk:Great Fire of London are actually invisible to the human eye. Nobody's picked up the sixpence under the rug in the sandbox article, either, but that I wouldn't expect. ;-) Bishonen | talk 16:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

Sybil Grant

Hi. Why did you delete this Bish? It is not that bad, and is better than the majority of the stuff on DYK. Please reconsider.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did I..? Seriously, Blnguyen. You do realize you led the wikicops straight to it? Did you see what happened to it? It's a mess, but I'll leave it to G to fix up, if he hasn't lost interest. I didn't delete it, I userfied it. I'm sorry I had to leave a redlink on the Main Page, but I see somebody took care of it. Bishonen | talk 01:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC).
Ghirlandajo nominated it for DYK on the 23rd, if that's useful info. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I actually regret my nomination, although DYK guys endorsed it.[9] [10] There had been moaning on DYK that we don't have good "hooks" and most nominations fail to attract the attention of casual readers, so I thought that this hook would divert the attention of many. It never occured to me that our readers are so humourless. I recommend to do nothing for a couple of hours while it is on Main Page. After DYK is updated next time, a massive revert to the last version by Giano will be in order. This is a standard practice with DYK entries. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, leave it as it is, we needed a good laugh after the events of recent weeks, I just regret I shall never be able to expand on my theory of Bolshevism and Lenin being unfluenced by a pome written by Lady Sybil! The world is a poorer place this morning, but I shall be writing an enlightening but serious artcile on the subject of Lady Sybil later today!!! Giano 07:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What a to do. It was just too plausible. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sybil Grant - explanation

After you had initially deleted the Sybil Grant article from mainspace, someone re-created a page with that title, but the only contents were a couple of irrelevant links (to a radio station, I believe). I posted to let you know. But someone else quickly tagged it as a contentless article and it was deleted again, rendering my comment warning you about this development moot. Newyorkbrad 02:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Poor Sybil! Poor Haggis where has he gone, I would have liked to have seen him on the main page too, along with JV, but how nice to see two great works there together. Some people just have no idea that a page about one of the greatest of British eccentrics should be barking mad too. Well done with the Relapse! Some of those talk page comments are funny though, chortle chortl Giano 07:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The things I do for this encyclopedia - This is the real Lady Sybil Giano 09:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know why Lady Blanche's image Image:Addlebook.gif won't appear on her page, I'm going to give up on mad old ladies and return to architecture, at least I can understand what is going on there! Giano 22:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It shows up for me. It is probably just a problem with the image servers in your part of the world; there has been a lot of that going on lately. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh well that is OK if someone I can see it, I still can't - just have to be patient then, Giano 07:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bird unleashed

Wow, look at the colibri flying all over the page, amazing! Thank you DVD R W ! Bishonen | talk 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

Np, I'm glad you got some new refs for The Relapse while it was on the mainpage and not just the usual defacement. I think you should also mention how Mr. Vanbrugh was more European than English ;-) DVD+ R/W 17:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • On my browser (Mozilla) and firewall stuff, the boids just pose, wings at apex. Only when I go to work and use an Apple do they flap. For me, they both pose like hood ornaments. :-) Geogre 12:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism

Honestly, I gave up on that mess a month ago. I really think it desperately needs an arbcom case along with "super" powers for admins involved in it, i.e. similar to what a few admins had on NLP for awhile. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 10:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a hello

Hello Bishonen, hadn't interacted with you in awhile so I thought I'd just drop a nice hello. Hope all's well in the neck of your editing woods. :-) (→Netscott) 19:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Scott, sure, how's yourself? Bishonen | talk 19:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC).
All's well thanks... been voyaging quite a bit so I've managed to break away from the 'pedia which has done me some good. I think I was taking things a bit too seriously which was making me feel like climbing the Reichstag building dressed as Spider-Man... but things are smoother now. See you around. :-) (→Netscott) 20:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Bah!"

FYI, I think the standard form of those arbitration summaries is to include only the "remedies" that passed, not the "principles" and "findings" and not proposals that weren't adopted. I agree the formal summary doesn't address the substance of the issues that were or weren't resolved, but it wasn't an arbitrary choice of what to include by the person who did the closing, either. I'm just glad the case is over with; but then again, I was never in favor of starting it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

(P.S. Feel free to get this post off your page too, if you like; I won't be offended.)
  • On the subject of "bah!," there I go trying to be a good citizen by telling the AN folks (where the brouhoho occurred) not to start a new hash on the subject, that everyone was as mollified as they could be by this case in its scope and that, if they thought there was more to say, to do it from a fresh starting point, and Doc Glasgow has some sort of internal explosion and accuses me of trying to get the last word! Holy cow, but that's right on the edge of totally flipping nuts. Here I thought that more people against the repromotion of Carnildo were disgruntled by the case than those for it, but Doc's tantrum and insults show that he's at least so upset that he's going to read every comment as being somehow persecution. This is just great. Geogre 18:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't agree with Doc's comments either, but let's let that one go, shall we? The alternative is a reprise of the last episode of Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman, I'm afraid. Newyorkbrad 18:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Brad don't think I don't truly appreciate your attempts at peace-making, but you seem to be completely ignorant of how strongly people feel about this matter. I'm sure in time we shall all get over it, but it won't be for quite a long time. I have a lot yet still to say on the matter, and even more that I am not allowed to say. Rest assured sooner or later though I will be saying it. However your soothing tones are starting to irritate, which I'm sure is not your intention. When I am good and ready I shall sue for peace, but it will be a peace on my terms, and my terms alone, and no placatory speeches from you or anyone will change that. Giano 21:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't disrupt the personal attack notice board

Last week you removed an NPA message I placed on User:Calton's talk page. That notice was required by the instructions on WP:PAIN. WP:PAIN requires "strict adherence" to its instructions. I referenced the related WP:PAIN notice in the edit summary When you removed the notice -- which was not the same as the earlier notice removed by Calton, despite your statement that it was -- you disrupted the WP:PAIN process, making it appear that I had not complied with the instructions, and making it harder for an uninvolved admin to review the complaint. VivianDarkbloom 19:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Bish, we're all tired of your incessant disruption. :-) Vivian, the PAIN process can be a bit of a ... well, pain, and has a tendency to make matters worse in my experience. Templates shouldn't be left for regular editors as a rule. A personal note is always a better idea, or no note at all if it's NPA related, unless the situation is serious. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)Bah humbug. Common sense is not disruptive, but userpage harassment is. Don't post on userpages after the user has shown they don't want you to. Hint: the user removing the message once is a way of showing they don't want you to. Edit warring on other people's userpages is inappropriate, against Wikipedia policy, and a blocking offense, so don't do it. And no, if an admin wants to review your complaint against Calton, your having put that message on his page twice (yeah, that'll make a good impression) is perfectly clear from the History. Furthermore, the VivianDarkbloom account is a sock, I bet they'll like that part, too. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

To my guests

File:Flame-04-june.gif

The "fire in da hole" article is now live, does anybody feel like reviewing, commenting, editing, etc? Do you think it's ready for FAC? Any comments at all? I had a lot of material and some difficulty selecting what to include. So if your favorite aspect or conundrum is missing, please add it or let me know what it is (I have some useful library books right here on my desk). What..? Oh, yes, yes, I do know about Peer review, but last time i listed something on it, I didn't get a single comment. :-( Look, I'll sweeten the deal: there's a sixpence hidden under one of the rugs, whoever finds it gets to keep it! Bishonen | talk 23:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

Bravo! A few concerns, though. Your maps of the fire are lovely but I'd like to see some labels. I can figure out what most landmarks are (The Thames, London Bridge, The Tower, the Wall) but nothing is marked. What is the black line just above London Bridge? What are the street names? What districts are included in this map? What is the building just above the city wall? I presume the blue cross is St. Paul's? I think labels would make the maps much more effective.
Besides the map, I have nary a problem with the text. It's as beautiful and learned as I always expect from you. Perhaps a quick side-project you might consider: a list of the major buildings (churches, etc) destroyed in the fire. I've always had a strange fascination with the churches of London (where else can you find such wonderful names as St. Clement Danes, St Anne's Limehouse and All Hallows Barking?). I'm not sure your feeling on such lists, but I think it would make a nice related item to this article. I'd certainly be willing to help out.
Indeed, the usefullness of Peer Review has faded. I believe, though, that with the quality of this article, the peer review could be done in FAC. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Ganymead, thanks very much—I was just returning here, in fact, in order to mention that the cute maps are by my good friends Wenceslas Hollar, Christopher Wren, and Bunchofgrapes—I hope one or more of them will address and discuss your concerns ! I thought the maps were so clear—but I'm bound to be a little crazy from reading too much about it. Oh, and All Hallows-by-the-Tower, is it? Surely that's got to be the red-linked "Barking Church", that Pepys climbed on the Wednesday? [/Me runs to bluelink it.] Thanks! But the churches—I'm ashamed to admit it, but I've taken an unreasoning dislike to the churches—they're the only things that get properly documented, you see, at the expense of everything else. My only really scholarly source, Reddaway, complains that the secular rebuilding is all a blur, because everybody's too busy documenting every last brick of the churches. In other words, they can be listed all right, but... I don't like them enough. :-( Plus it would make the article longer still. Or you mean a separate list article? Now that's an idea!
So, you read the whole thing and didn't see anything odd, huh? Didn't find the sixpence...? Well, it's, unfairly, more readily recognizable to somebody who's been around longer, I guess. ALoan, Geogre, Giano, if you're out of pocket money, go read! Bishonen | talk 02:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC).
Yes, I meant the list should be separate. I think the maps are clear to me (I know London fairly well) but I think someone who hasn't had a chance to visit or read up on the city, like ourselves, might find them uninformative. I will take a closer look at the article. I could use sixpence. :-) *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Ganymead, the little day-by-day maps are deliberately label-free in an attempt to reduce visual clutter, the idea being that one would refer to that big first map in the article for bearings. Most of the things you ask about are labelled in the big one I think, with the exception of street names. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Now I feel like a fool. Oh well, the map at the top answers all my questions. I noticed it, but I don't think it registered. Marvelous work, BOG, I especially love that it is overlaid over an older map. Very nice! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
For someone who doesn't know what a sixpence is, I'll make my best guess. Towards the end of Great_Fire_of_London#Sunday.2C_September_2 is it quoted accurately that Samuel Pepys wrote, "simplicity [=the stupidity] of my Lord Mayor", the sixpence being [=the stupidity]? The article is one of the best, and at the moment I really like the panorama box. Did Bunchofgrapes make that? DVD+ R/W 03:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I assume we are looking for some flaw. After the guess above, another thing that I wonder about is "connivancy [that is, the corruption]" towards the end of Great_Fire_of_London#Fire_hazards_in_the_City. Are both these braketed remarks your notes within the quotes? Not having the books before me I have to ask. DVD+ R/W 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't know what a sixpence is? The dear old tanner? You flabbergast me. When I were a young 'un, me and my fourteen twenty-three sixty-eight brothers and sisters would get a sixpence between us to buy Christmas presents with (chorus: "Christmas presents? You were lucky!"). Yes, those are my bracketed explanations, I thought the 17th-century usage needed glossing—"simple" did mean stupid, typical personal attack. Do you think the explanations are not clear? Would footnotes be better, or am I meddling unnecessarily altogether? Bunchofgrapes did indeed, he's a clever canny lad. Bishonen | talk 05:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

This is a truly superlative piece of work, Bishonen: well-organized, well-written, well-sourced, well-illustrated, and well-ready for the main page in short order I do expect. I will take another pass through tomorrow for copy-edits but I don't expect to find much; I will seek the 6d as well. A tour-de-force; congratulations. Newyorkbrad 06:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Let's celebrate with some barbecue:

I am sorry that the steaks and sausages haven't yet learned how to rotate or flap their wings... (Hm, I'm hungry. Have to get breakfast.) up+land 08:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks guys, you're shy-makingly kind! [/Bishzilla blushes in embarrassment, then quickly cheers up.] Tups, that's not the WP:BULL on the grill, is it? Looks suspiciously like it! Bishonen | talk 11:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC).
Looks good, Bishonen. I did a lot of picky stuff, which you are free to remove at discretion and no hurt feelings, and I didn't add anything more than four words. Of course the triumphalist narrative of the Fire always centers on the rebuilding in modern versions, and this article leaves out all of the rebuilding. That's good, as the rebuilding is not the fire, and the fire is not the rebuilding, and we're all following Annus Mirabilis by trying to find a palace of silver in the dark smoke clouds. Of course, it does beg for an article on "Rebuilding of London," if there were a stable term for it. It's ready to be an FA, whatever FAC says. Geogre 12:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and for the sixpence, I'm sixpence, none the richer. (Monetary conversions, dear.) Geogre 12:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the fixes, Geogre, and for the "triumphalism" comment. I think that was exactly the narrative I was trying to avoid, though I didn't make it clear to myself (until you did). I hate those "it was all for the best" histories—my sources are all like that, naturally. Almost as much as I hate all their spotlight on Charles and James and the wonderful way they rose to the occasion and impressed their humble people by getting soot on their very own royal frilly white shirts. We skipped that, haha. [/Bishzilla is such a commie! Grrrrr!] Yes, it calls out for an article on the rebuilding, and also the social aftermath—not so much is known, of course, but it's a fascinating subject IMHO. Shortage of labour, prices and supplies, profiteering, all that. Well, OK... so I'm the only person on the planet that that sounds interesting to. Don't you agree, though, that the final section as it presently stands is too impoverished? I shall have to do something, for about ten obvious things are sort of missing. Oh boredom, more reading. :-( Bishonen | talk 18:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC).
From a historian's point of view, "long view" is one of the primary options, and teleology is almost impossible to shear away, so it's a legitimate way of looking at things, and it's further endorsed by Dryden, but it's remarkable that the "march of progress" narrative is virtually the only one that has been written when it comes to the fire. Forget the enlightenment itself: the present day's image of itself is very deeply invested in a progressivist view of the late 17th - 18th centuries. We keep telling the story of the banishing of superstition because we think we're engaged in the same project, and therefore telling a story other than "clearing away the poor people for a glorious London to come" is to imperil our ongoing narrative of urbanism and progress and expansion. It is also, paradoxically, a very necessary view for radical capitalism: the market will provide by building up hovels and then burning them down.
On the other hand, I think the stories of Chuck and Jim are more important. It's not because they got sooty, but because they asserted centralism and federalism against devolved power. One of the stories of the period was the limitations of democracy, the mob versus the elites, and the attempted justifications of birth. If we cut away that last part only, we get much more interesting things about the first two. Also, this is pre-syphilitic James (or early syphilitic James), and he was doing a job. That part alone would be surprising to contemporary Brits. (His pre-coronation work is actually interesting, as a good bit was "me-too" to Charles, but a lot of it was also, "I'm gonna get rich," and he had amassed a pretty hefty fortune of his own before having to become the Old Pretender.)
I don't think the first section is all that needy, although there is a pile that we can add. The way that London grew without official growth is important to the debility of the various fire precincts, as well as to the debility of the policing. Because it grew over autonomous areas, and because it grew without statutory extension, it ended up with ancient practices mixing with planned maintenance. The story you read in The Mint is indicative of everything outside the wall. London City had a system, but each direction outside the wall had a different system, or no system. Also, there is more to say about tenements and the braces they had to use to keep from falling down.
When it comes to the rebuilding, we'd need a name for it, and I mean a single name. Also, one wonders now whether the fire isn't one of the reasons that Moorfields because the proverbial home of highwaymen, whores, and witches 30 years later. One wonders if the dispossessed who didn't move on became progenitors of a race of poor and thieving and desperate persons. Geogre 18:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it is very good inded, and should go straight to FAC immediatly, the only thing that bothers me is that there was the destrucion of the " opulent bathroom fittings shops" what a loss that must hve been! Giano 16:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed! Of all the tragedies during those four days, that was one that sent Restoration culture and sophistication plummeting. Take the sixpence, you've earned it, and about time, too. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC).
Where ther is money I am like a homing pigeon! There is just one eency weency but rather gruesome little detail I don't agree with "the heat of the fire would have cremated all victims, leaving no recognizable human remains" when I was new to my RL career I had to deal with a certain criminal - No you don't want to go there - just trust me - and I can tell you categorically that the heat from the fire of wooden houses would not be sufficient for that, tinder dry and pushed by wind, it would have been an intense heat, but in a specific spot very quick, not long enough - something, quite a lot actually would have remained. So do you mean "recognizable human remains" as in not recognizable to their loved ones (God I hate that common expression) or not recognizable as human remains, the former is likely the latter impossible. Finally on a more cheery note, the lead image shows the Tower of London clearly on the right, just as it is in BoG's images perhaps it would clarify things for those who find it hard to read maps if some mention of that similarity between maps and image was made. Giano 18:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This was supposed to be a firestorm, though—hotter than your regular wood fire. See the page Firestorm: "The greater draft of a firestorm draws in greater quantities of oxygen which significantly increases combustion, thereby also substantially increasing the production of heat. The intense heat of a firestorm manifests largely as radiated heat (infrared radiation) which ignites flammable material at a distance ahead of the fire itself." Nothing about how hot, but hotter. I'd better check what Hanson says again, it's been awhile since I read the "cremated" comment. Quite possibly I made it up. Thanks for that horrible glimpse of RL, it makes me more determined than ever to never visit the place. Reading maps? But everybody can read.... oh, all right, I see what you mean. I've added a bit to the image caption. Do you think it'll help? Please revise if you can think of a more pedagogical way of putting it. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC).
Caption is now fine. To have the heat you suggest the fire would have to have surrounded an unburnt area, as it is from what I understand from the article the fire crept in directions but never surrouneded the city, it si the ring of fire that causes a vortex Giano 20:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

Hi there. User:Doctors without suspenders (i.e., TheWolfstar/Maggie/Lingeron/WhiskeyRebellion/etc) and User:Anarcho-capitalism keep reverting my insertion of a {{NPOV}} banner, claiming that "There's no good reason for these tags to be here" and "Wgee had no legitimate complaints", respectively. [11][12]. This type of behaviour is a hall-mark of a troll. I've explained to them that they do not have the prerogative do decide whether or not the neutrality of the article is disputed, nor do my reasons for inserting the tag have to comply with their definitions of "good" and "legitimate". This was to no avail, as you might expect. So, since they refuse to listen to me, could you please admonish them for this disruptive, illogical behaviour? Maybe they'll listen to an administrator.

Also, you might want to read this complaint at the administrator's noticeboard for some background information on anarcho-capitalism's disruptive behaviour. I was hoping that he could be temporarily blocked as per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, but the consensus seems to be that I should seek arbitration.

Any help or advice would be appreciated! Thanks in advance,

WGee 03:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Maggie removed a tag? Usually she specializes in adding them. I agree about opting for arbitration, especially since Woohookitty, who knows the page so well, seems to think it's the only option. It sounds like it's time to admin-lock the article for a while. Btw, that's one ug-lee-looking page! Talk about box hell. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC).
WGee is acting against consensus, POV tag was removed by two difrent editors and two other agreed on talk that there is no reason for POV tag. I would have also removed it, if I had a chance. Also, it seems that you mixed Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism articles. Woohookitty was active only on Anarchism. -- Vision Thing -- 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus. – WP:CONSENSUS

Furthermore, it is nobody's prerogative but mine to determine whether or not I dispute the article. All that is required in good faith is that I justifiy my reasons for disputing that article's neutrality, as I did. My reasons do not have to meet two editors' definitions of "good" or "legitimate" in order for the tag to remain. I'm sure you know that, Vision Thing. -- WGee 06:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Words among the grotesques

It won't be legible, what with all the flames and hippie blue jean patches and squawking, but I thought I'd mention that I e-mailed. Also, a thought occurred to me, in the midst of my bilious reflections on my own self-fulfilling prophecies (there is a tautology or two there): the Navy in the 17th & 18th century was today's Air Force. It was surprise attack, hopelessly technological, an industry that nations took great pride in surpassing others in technology, restricted to nations with advanced sciences, and romantic. Thus all the books of naval terminology released then, and all the books of aircraft released now, and for the same readers, too. Thus all the criticizing of novels for not getting their naval terminology and slang just right then (see Swift defending himself genuinely in Gulliver's Travels) and all the criticizing of novels for not getting their air strikes just right in military/spy/war novels now. Thus the "sailor" being a figure of a lady's bawdiest dreams and a "captain" being a lady's most marriageable dreams then, and thus a "fighter jock" being a lady's trysting fantasy now and a ... well, they don't dream so much of majors and colonels in the AF now. The point being that the intense interest in gosh-golly aspects of military terminology and practice, with exact relations of navigation and all the naming of tools, in 18th c. seafaring works is analogous to today's movies with gosh-golly super weaponized fighters. It's the same thing, just faster. Geogre 12:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC) </Geogre waves furiously, begins hopping up and down.> Geogre 21:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Okay, this article wasn't the one I was referring to before, but I was wondering if you could take a look at Hilary Duff (album) and leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hilary Duff (album)/archive1. As I told Geogre, disposable teen pop can be so fun and wonderfully trashy! I know you said you don't know much about music, but that's actually useful because I want to make sure people who don't know much about music can understand the article. Also, it probably needs a copyedit and might be too long. You don't have to comment if you don't want to though, and I won't mind if you don't. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 12:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OK,, sure, I'll take a look. If you're in the mood for a little tit for tat, scroll up and take a look at my informal peer review under the heading "To my guests", hmm? Don't feel obligated or anything, and especially, no, you don't have to say I'm wonderful (an informal compulsion to do that seems to have developed, which I think is something to do with my having recently registered User:Bishzilla as an alternative account—people never know when I'm coming to stomp on them!) Just please let me know if you see any problems with the page, especially anything that's hard to follow or understand. If you happen to not be familiar with 17th-century history, it would indeed be an advantage, just as you suggest yourself. But it's only a thought, don't feel you have to take me up on it. Best, Bishonen | talk 13:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC).

My talk page

Bishonen - thank you for your help regarding Gryffndor. Things got personal a little while ago, but we have a great moderator that has helped make a lot of good, respectful discussion and progress (potential). I just want to be able to edit and contribute - if I step out of line it's one thing, but what he's been doing is so blatantly personal. It's nice to know that at least someone noticed! Rarelibra 13:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I've been watching and contributing to those threads on AN and ANI because I feel strongly about attempts to force users to keep warnings visible (especially those mechanical templates—of course templates have no special authority over a note in a human voice, but they are more inflammatory and humiliating), and I noticed your post on AN, I think it was. Policy—which is what admins actually do, and what there's consensus for—has been changing rather quickly on this point. You can take a look at the discussion here if you're interested. But I'm hoping the threads I linked to will be persuasive to Gryffindor. If not, I can find more, as it's quite a big subject on the admin noticeboards. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC).

I think it's valid for anonymous IP addresses - so an admin can see historic viewpoint of continual abuse from one address. But from a particular user I think it all depends on the situation. In this more recent situation, I stumbled into a situation with South Tyrol that has been ongoing for a year. Then I didn't quite realize the impact of my actions, and was warned while I was learning that I walked right into a minefield. Gryffndor took it personal and made statements such as me "wasting my time on Wiki Commons" because (in his words) "I am (ahem) a sysop there as well". So Gryffndor and I locked horns a few times. I found a voluntary mediator with an admin - Lar - and he has done a lot to monitor the situation and cool our heads. I thought it was all well and good, then suddenly Gryffndor is back on my personal page with his threats of "continually monitoring me". I find this offensive. I am a military person and have a strong personality, but I haven't done anything that deserves such. The greatest percentage of my edits have been contributing to fill holes in wiki where I find maps missing or other information needed (or corrected). So I simply want him to leave me alone and do his own good in edits and not constantly theaten or monitor me in any way - after all, that IS violating the wiki harrassment (or stalking) rules. Rarelibra 22:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mrs. Humphry Ward

Do you know anything about this author, her name keeps cropping up in my Hannah re-search, and there is limited internet material available, she based the heroine of a couple of her books loosely on Hannah, and lived in a house close by (incidentally on my youth I went to a parties there twice she had long gone, and the new owner was somewhat more notorious and entertaining - had an amazing jacuzzi - where no-one was allowed to where clothes - Oh to be youthful again. Seriously is she famous in English lit, or in the same class as poor dear lamented Sybil? God oh gods I just tried her as a link Mrs. Humphry Ward it workss - but the question remains........Giano 21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not in the same class as Sybil at all, much better known. Not a good writer, you know, but a notable public figure, and especially an establishment figure, against whom the suffragettes and the New Women defined their efforts. (The New Women = the Victorian, you know, feminists?—if you've heard of such a thing.) She was known as a children's writer and public debater, promulgating conservative values and religion. And anti-feminism—she was the president of the Anti-suffragette League! Bishonen | talk 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC).
Ah well Lord Rosebery was against giving votes to women, because "India (ie the Indians) would not like it" and of course Hannah was so powerful she hardly needed a vote - but would she (Mrs H W) have based Sir G Tresady's heroine and (I can't be bothered to click back) "Melissa?" on Hannah R? The Gutenberg link suggests although they were close neighbours Stocks is with in sight of Mentmore they were not that close friends, have you read anywhere before that her heroine as based on Hannah? I've started to read the books (first 2 pages) and don't see it, yet McKinstry gives it as fact Giano 21:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If women cannot be trusted with the difficult political decisions, and so should not have the vote, one wonders what they are doing setting up a political organisation like the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League to campaign against it... -- ALoan (Talk) 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
In my experience - they just can't help trying to take control - Of course in Sicilia we don't have these problems our women respect their menfolk Giano 22:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
What's the matter Bishonen dear - something caught in your throat? Giano 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Smoke inhalation, no doubt. That is one good article, by the way. The only change I would make would be to extend the "aftermath" slightly to talk about rebuilding a bit more. At the very least, The Monument should be mentioned. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, please compare my comments on Talk:Great Fire of London. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC).
Well, I was rather hoping that we could knock off an adequare "aftermath" section for this, so it could pass FAC soonish, without having to wait for a complete new "afterwards/rebuilding" article to be written and then summarised here (great though that article would no doubt be). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bishonen that one has to cut some bit of the story off, and the rebuilding is the best candidate. For one thing, to be at all fair, the rebuilding must be complicated, because it was a very complicated affair. Any number of wonderful plans bumped against each other, and even the grubbiest of plans bumped up against the Dutch Wars and their costs, and all bumped up against Parliament, which was run by Commons, which was run by various ancestors of Ronald Reagan's and Margaret Thatcher's. They didn't see why they should give a farthing to help the king look good or ape papists. Against all the economic reality, pitch the commercial development that was taking place without permission. Against that, toss in the competing public health views (some prophetic, and some stupid). Then add in some powerful personalities in the Royal Academy. No: even a bird's eye view of the rebuilding is 20 years at a blink. I know readers are going to yearn for closure and a happy ending, but the actual ending, as opposed to the poetic one that has been repeated countless times, is money, the King getting a mysterious lump sum from France (for promising to convert to Catholicism), the gain of New Amsterdam and loss of Surinam, etc.
BTW, ALoan, I've just been reading The Insatiate Countess, by John Marston and some actors, and I met there (1610) "rhinoceros" used as an insult, as the rhinoceros was a great example of a stupid beast with a horn in the middle of its forehead: a cuckold. Geogre 02:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh groan, the Monument. I cannot make myself share the manic fascination with this topic, but I've added something. Of course feel completely free to expand, ALoan. If you think it proportionate. <BISHZILLA WILL GET YOU.>
All right, here goes nothing. We're on FAC. Bishonen | talk 06:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC).
Hehe, we have a support already! Bishonen | talk 06:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC).
No, I am going to bed... seriously. Bishonen | talk 06:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC).
  • I'm thinking that the less said about the objection, the better. It's as much validation as I could ask for of my hatred of people using style sheets: you should have to take a gun safety class before getting a gun, a driver's test before getting a driver's license, a background check before you get explosives, and you should actually have to understand grammar, syntax, and prose quality before getting access to a style sheet...except, of course, if you understand those things you won't need a style sheet! Geogre 12:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Call for reinforcements here. I don't really have any comments on the equation of long sentences with rambling sentences; I don't think them synonymous, but YMMV. But a "covering note" of mine about Pepys' Diary ended up too far down, leaving some statements "uncovered", so I'd better fix that and mention that I have. Bishonen | talk 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC).
I'm off to an exciting day of meetings in the so-called real world, but will have a look in, later on. Newyorkbrad 12:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course we are grammarians...or I am, anyway, professionally...although that doesn't mean that we don't never miss grammar. Anyway, a single objection like that won't stand in the way, and he's entitled to his opinion (even if thinking that a compound-complex sentence must ramble is a wrong opinion, in my own opinion, and putting an adjectival subordinate clause as a modifier into a main clause is a good relief from the jackhammering of simple and compound sentences). Geogre 13:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I spotted a few infelicities when I quickly read it last night, but not enought to want to complain about them - I will do a light copyedit when I have the time over the next few days. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why a picture of the monument is called for

The monument is located at Pudding Lane, where the fire started (yes, you and I know that it started somewhere near there, not there exactly), so, perhaps early on a monument photo? Geogre 13:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • No No No Geogre - I don't think I have ever said that before, I rarely disagree with you but on this instance I do very strongly. I think if you are not very careful you could spoil the layout and feel of the page which is very "restoration", no fotos at all so far, that to suddenly introduce a modern image would be very jarring indeed. While I would love to rant all over the page about the architecture that came afterwards, the whole page is about before and during rather than after, perhaps the page needs a sequel rather than additions. Giano 15:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Gosh. I just wanted a picture of Pudding Lane, or a pudding itself. Geogre 15:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well you can't have one! Trust me I am right! If you want to be useful have a copy edit to Hannah for me, i'm going out for an hour, and am tired of her, even if she does have her own rather tacky Taj mahal she has become a very demanding if not verbose mistress - having seen what they are saying about Fire I can all too easliy immagine what they will say about her if I am ever stupid enough to put her there. Giano 16:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I beg your pardon Bishonen. Do I look look like the sort of Goat that would appear in a common Rodeo? Let me tell you I shop in Roma, London and Milano, I am a goat of sophistication where did you but your last dress I ask? Stockholm is very passe and full of last years colours I expect. Must go - that nice little shop in "Beauchamp Place" is calling, why don't you put that in the trivia section too? Love Sicilia.
Hi Sicilia! No, you don't look like a rodeo goat, you look like a goat from one of the houses of ill repute around the park area of Moorfields, where the fire refugees went. Put that in your Trivia section and smoke it. (Chorus: "You put your weed in there!") Bishzilla.14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

To avoid the tackiness (feared by Giano) of those newfangled daguerrotypies or photo... whatever, an old picture could be used, such as the one here. (There are puddings in the picture, but they are too small to be seen.) up+land 11:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No that is light bright and 18th century, the monumnent was an afterthought to history, and needs to be in the sequel not the fire page which is all Higgldypiggledy houses, Restoration prints and serious paintings and portraits, any pictures of classical architecture would stick out like a goat at a rhodeo. Giano 13:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Higgledy? Piggledy?? Watch it, buster. Bishonen | talk 13:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC).
It is an accepted term for disjointed evolved architecture! as opposed to smooth and sleek neoclassical which is what the monument is! Giano 13:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, right, and you're taking that goat of yours on the rodeo circuit now? Bishonen | talk 13:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC).
I hope everybody realizes that the pudding in Pudding Lane isn't a dessert. The word carries it's old meaning of offal. (No, I will not add that interesting fact to the article, currently clocking in at 50 kb. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit: you add it. Yes, you! Start a "Trivia" section!) Bishonen | talk 13:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC).
I did not know that; but then again, I learn more from the dialog on this page than from many articles: User talk:Bishonen is the trivia section. Can I nominate to DYK directly from here? Newyorkbrad 13:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, Steak and kidney pie... (No, I didn't know that either, but I have now read the authoritative treatise on the subject.) up+land 14:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Well now, you see, puddings were made by stuffing entrails with meat and offal and other things. Think of a haggis, or, indeed humble pie. But were the entrails and organs named after the dish, or vice versa? Was Pudding Lane a place of butchery? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Aha - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pudding - [Origin: 1275–1325; ME poding kind of sausage; cf. OE puduc wen, sore (perh. orig. swelling), LG puddewurst black pudding] or [Middle English, a kind of sausage, from Old French boudin.] -- ALoan (Talk) 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
While we're on the subject of pies, might I recommend those made by a Mrs. Lovett in Fleet Street? And be sure to see her friend the barber, Sweeney Todd (chorus chimes in:The Demon Barber of Fleet Street), next door. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, shepherd's pie, with real Sheppard on top. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Golden Boy of Pye Corner(!) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I'm one mean snake on FAC just now. I'm sorry, ALoan, if you caught shrapnel in the explosion, and Grapes, if you got hit by friendly fire, too, but I know my exasperation with style sheet tracer paper is well known and somewhat shared. I spend every danged day having to cover grammar, and then I see people basically wanting to take us back to the his genitive and in love with "lofty" sounding phrasings at the very same damned time that they're trying to encourage Hemingwayesque brusqueness. That they don't know what they want is a given. That they don't understand what they're asking for is the point that bugs me. Geogre 16:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, his genitive is red. Time to dig out the Algeo & Pyles, I suppose, or see if it's already discussed in genitive or if that's really the most common term for "Ned his house." (No, no, do not think that the his genitive is the most ancient. it isn't. It's a hypercorrective error generally confined to the 1640's - 1690's, about like people today pronouncing the "t" in "often.") Geogre 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • His genitive is blue now, but the irony fairy thwapped me: I wrote it, but it's startlingly bad prose, and the article could use a wholesale rewrite. It's just that the material is sort of difficult to explain clearly. Geogre 11:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, you used to have that? This kind of genitive construction is common in Low German, Afrikaans and Norwegian (dem Mann sein Hund / die man se hond / mannen sin hund = the man's dog (the Man his Dog?). I love it - I try to work it into every edit I make to the Norwegian Wikipedias ;) Do your sources not mention the possibility of a relation between these and the English his genitive? Haukur 11:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, Curme mentions it explicitly, and Baugh isn't in the business of mentioning it (as his book is strictly confined to morphology and not linguistics). Algeo & Pyles (A History of English) don't mention the comparative angle. Curme notes that it occurs in other OHG derivatives but can't quite connect the dots, and I'm not sure how easily the dots could be connected, if Baugh is right and it occurs because of an accident of phonology. I'll go back to Curme and add in the cognate usages in other Germanic languages. Geogre 12:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The phonological accident could perhaps have been strengthened by German influence. Just because you've got one good explanation you don't have to discard all the less good explanations ;) It's probably not necessary to postulate a connection but people like me will wonder about it and want to see it addressed in the article. In sum - great, thanks! Haukur 13:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that is a DYK if ever I saw one. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Really? I thought it was far too dull, and I'm still convinced that I did a hash on the writing of it. The DYK part is whether or not the his genitive is the reason people use the apostrophe for genitive endings in ModE. The genitive article says that it's debatable, but Curme and Baugh both say that it's simply true, although Baugh points out that Samuel Johnson was probably the source for the popularity of the theory. (The genitive article has no citations, but the his genitive article does, so we know who wins, if it's a contest.) Geogre 12:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes - something like "...that the genitive "-'s" ending in English may be derived from the his genitive construction [common in some other European languages]?" (you would have to get a citation for the last bit, of course).
Of course, the question the feminists are pondering is how this would work with a feminine character: "Molly (his?!?) dog?" *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I have just had to rewrite Sir Peter Lely - one of the recent bio copyvios, apparently. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, new Did you know for the his genitive, with newly added information that connects the dots to other OHG languages. Basically, it's this: our good friends the Anglo-Saxons had a his genitive, her genitive, and their genitive, but they stopped for some reason or never got all over with it. (No info on whether or not it's a Danelaw feature.) Other OHG languages kept going with it. So it shows up in ModE from a misunderstanding of lME. I added the DYK entry, so we'll see if they think it's comprehensible. Geogre 19:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
How absolutely fascinating. And what a good job I found the latest Bishonen-article and ended up here to comment. Now I have learned a thing about language as well as lots about London. Sorry, btw, to butt in here, but my browser can't cope with editing the entire page, so I have to piggy-back on a section. Hello, Bishonen (and all). Yes, I realised subsequently that the talk page commentary must be from the FAC. I slunk off from WP:FAC when people started posting their lists of grammar to abide by. All a bit too much "I'll see your Strunk and White, and I'll raise you a copy of the Oxford Guide to Style." Anyway, love the article. It's almost as informative as your talk page :) Telsa (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh heh, I trust you like the rotating dinosaur. Well, of course you do, everybody does! ;-) Bishonen | talk 17:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC).
The dinosaur troubles me not at all. I have a magic "kill images" button on my toolbar. Feel free to connect these facts in any way you see fit :) (Btw, it doesn't rotate for me. I feel deprived.) Telsa (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoration comedy edits

Hi, thanks for bringing that to my attention re: my edits to Restoration comedy. I was under the impression that un-piped links are preferrible to piped ones, however that does not seem to always be the case. Also, I added the extra links because they seemed like words/concepts that the average reader might want a fuller explanation of. But, if my edits were disagreeable, then by all means they should be reverted. Regards, Paul 19:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Erich Heller

Saw you were on the delete logs for this - it came up as a speedy - do you know the history of this? --plange 08:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I have now reverted the blanking and the speedy tags. The author of the page had done it himself, under the illusion that the article is his to do as he likes with. I do know the story, but it's very surrealistic and complicated, and I have to catch a train. Please either refer to User:Charles Matthews or just take a good look at User talk:Prof02. Oh, and if you're an admin, I suggest you protect the page if he tries to get it speedied again. By all means try talking with him if you want, to explain how the system works, the GFDL and so on, but, well, you may want to take a look at his talkpage before you do. Bishonen | talk 08:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

Thank you for supporting my RfA

 Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA.

I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it.

Again, thanks; └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr.khan

I found that this sockpuppet also voted support on my RfA, so I suppose the count should be corrected there, too. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Great Fire of London

No, you have not offended me, and I regret that I have offended you. I simply think that many of the sentences in the article are verbose. In my personal writing I like complex and rich language, but I'm less fond of it in profession and public works. My manner in opposition might have been brusque, but it was late at night, and I felt it was in keeping with the general tone of FAC. (Tony1 has in the past been particularly brutal regarding prose, and the term has been thrown around sever times over the year.) Later comments in the FAC directed at me rubbed me the wrong way, and "Flab" and variants unfortunately stuck in the immediacy. I'm sorry the offense. I hope you see that I've been trying to work in good faith to improve the article, which is well done, regardless of its designation.--Monocrat 22:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A Kitten's Story

I'm only 10 minutes into it (the shortnened US version, narrated by Dudley Moore), but think this may well be the best movie ever made! (Dersu Uzala was kitten-less, I believe) El_C 01:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oohh, look at the full-size version of the pic! The cute little thing is thwacking you one, with claws just like needles! It reminds me of WP:FAC, somehow. Here, here, li'l FACie, come to... ouch! Bishonen | talk 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC).
The waterfall scene was disturbing. The kitten was saying meooew meooew and I thought, 'he isn't acting, that kitten is genuinely afraid.' Not cool. El_C 05:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My Editor Review

Hi, I just started an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Jersey Devil and am trying to get feedback on my edits. Feel free to leave a review or comment. Thanks and bye.--Jersey Devil 02:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thewolfstar

Although they're both on open proxies, a checkuser on Doctors without suspenders (talk · contribs) led me to Radiant hedgehog (talk · contribs) who led me to Imagination débridée (talk · contribs), who you've already blocked as Thewolfstar, so I assume it's a safe bet they're all Thewolfstar. These three have used an amazing amount of open proxies; I haven't finished going through them all. Do you know if there are any more socks recent enough to check for proxies? Dmcdevit·t 19:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

WhiskeyRebellion

Oops! I'm so sorry I didn't realize that user was blocked! Thanks, and my apologies. Mar de Sin Speak up! 23:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Bishonen | talk 23:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

Great balls of fire

Adding to my first reply: you mentioned that you might refrain from any more FACs. Please don't let my temporary foolishness affect your plans. –Outriggr § 05:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't just you. Anyway, I don't think I did any grandstanding about taking my ball and going home, I just said I'd hesitate longer next time before FACing anything, which may not be a bad thing. Getting a body part or two crushed between the wheels is part of the wiki experience and a good way of finding out how unfamous you (anybody) are (is). You and me both. Half of even those who watch any particular debacle never notice, the rest forget about it in short order. Even more so with your triumphs: feel good about them, by all means, but be aware that nobody else remembers, and that, in any case, 90% of the population always arrived last week and have never heard of you. It's a very indifferent place, which is good and bad—mostly bad, IMO—but it does mean it's easy to live down a setback. Don't be concerned for your repute, it's already recovered. Bishonen | talk 13:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC).
Yes, and I say Fukit all the time, and last week I was Wikipedia most notorious infamous wicked evil divisive disruptive and insulting enabler (I was never sure what that one meant). who was only here to demand a "free pass" to be even more rude to Admins and members of the Arbcom, and now just look at me a week later a forgotten dull old has-been - such is wiki-fame. Giano 13:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Giano, we can all see how much you miss the limelight. Those are some of the saddest cases, where nothing remains of the old scandal except a whiff of je t'adore and an Ancient Mariner-type compulsion to look for somebody to buttonhole. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC).
I think I'm the one being most mean, and I think I've explained why adequately. Memory does persist, though: just look at Sandy Springs responding (or not) to me. Also, I am rather the same person each time out, except that I've been getting less polite as time has gone on and there has been no mending of ways. I get some of the same reactions, too, when I complain generally about, let's say, a self-appointed "style" and "copy editing" master/mistress, and every person who has made a change to an article thinks I'm referring to him or her. It has never been that changes aren't possible, and I would commend my history of dealing with changes to "my" pages as witness, but about the name of these changes being "fixes" (the implied incompetence of everyone but the Myrtle the Turtle judge of style and copy), when they're more alterations. Some are improvements. They're not "fixes," however, unless there are actual errors present or, much more directly implied, incompetence involved. How could anyone interact with such an arbiter without being insulted? Add to that what appears to be memory-based prejudicial interest, and how could anyone fail to be irritated or worse? So it goes. It's just that the long memories look funny to the people with no previous experience of these conversations and arguments, while the new person's comments can look like an insidious reiteration of the long time quarrel, and thus we mistake friend for foe in all directions. Geogre 18:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE READ, don't just revert

Re: Starwood Festival article

Please READ the most recent version of the article I wrote. Let's see what I have added in the last time:

I included the topic magical and spiritual, and still state that the phrase "New Age topics" does NOT cover them adequately. Many New Age folks do not accept that magical practice is part of what they do, and there are many spiritual practices that are NOT New Age ones. I also added the topic "mind/body sciences". I included the founding date of the event. I cut the repeat of the phrase "these communities" and just made it "them". I trimmed the third paragraph MORE than the one you keep reverting to. I added an additional type of dance that is featured at the event, then cut a paragraph out.

I created a "Features of the event" section, and cut some of the same other paragraphs that the version you revert to cut. I changed "that can be seen from space" to "visible from space". I added "Sufiism" to the list of spiritual paths featured under the People section.

Otherwise, I have accepted a lot of the cuts that have been made. Gone is the mention of seasonal campers, wood-busters, the line about the intent of the event, the mention of the event being a yearly vacation for some, the "celebrating their diversity" line, and more. In fact, I think I have eliminated most of what has been objected to, while making the description of the event and its components more complete.

I urge you to actually READ the newer copy, and to compare it to such sites as the Burning Man site, and explain why reverting to that one rather than using this one is an improvement. In my opinion, the addition of a History section, a Principles section, a Community section, a Timeline section, and all sorts of other information would be encyclopedic and in keeping with the rest of Wikipedia, along with graphs and photos. I see no reason to harass me over the present content.

However, I apologize for violating the 4-revert rule. It was an accident, and I did self-revert as soon as it was pointed out to me. I'm not sure I did it right, but I certainly did not revert it again until Timmy12 stepped in, and he has a history of staking my articles and reverting them. Rosencomet 21:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Who wast?

Wasn't Prof02 another name before? It's coming up on the AfD for Erich Heller. Geogre 21:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, at least not in the sense you mean on AfD. There's one account I suspect is his sockpuppet, but that account's editing has been limited to a few talk-page posts. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
No, Geogre. You'll have to retract that, I reckon. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

I can be wrong, of course, but I thought he was signing with another name at first then set himself up as Prof02. I'm sure enough to not retract, although I can't remember the prior name. It was a nonsensical name abakabababaa something like that. Geogre 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had much more contact with this user (worse luck for me), and I do think you're wrong. IRC, Geogre? Bishonen | talk 02:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC).
IRC within the next few minutes, that is, for after that I'm off. Bishonen | talk 02:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC).

Thesis

  1. All critics apply their theoretical background to their works and authors, but
    1. As publish or perish increased, young "scholars" began looking for authors who would work for their theories, rather than for theories that would work for them or be true, so psychoanalytic critics went looking for authors and works with poop phobias, Marxists went looking for authors and works with some sneering or romanticizing of poverty.
    2. The theories became increasingly speculative and decreasingly applicable, as they began to obey their own Darwinian dynamic and fight against one another for the most unique and exclusive appeal.
  2. When a person begins with a very small tool, she or he has to find a very small nut to crack.
  3. We stop talking about Dickens and Pope and Ford Maddox Ford to begin talking about small, small appeal works and about the major figures only with antipathy and denunciation.
  4. It's enough to make you sick to your stomach. Geogre 10:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

David Garrick, Samuel Foote, and the red-linked Bedford Coffee-house

Greetings all! I'm back to trudging through the David Garrick article and came across Sam Foote who is just fascinating. I just finished a rework of his article. Anyhow, the Bedford Coffee-house has popped up in both article as a red-link. Might any of you literary types have anything on it so that it can be a blue link? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Gosh - he was the one to taunt poor William Dodd as Dr Simony. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
He's blue, but there can be more, as even I had heard of him. I seem to be very busy on Wikipedia all of a sudden. Who knew little his genitive would generate so much discussion? Geogre 21:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In his defence, he appears to be an equal opportunity taunter, though he did get mighty pissed when David Garrick taunted him. Any idea in what play he taunted Dodd? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
From Google, one sources (actually this interesting-looking paper from JSTOR) mentions a Dr. Simony in The Coseners - is that a Foote play? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...it doesn't ring a bell, nor appear in my sources. I will check at the library tonight, though. They have the complete works of Foote. I'll check out the paper as well. Thanks! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Since Simony derives from the Book of Acts and was a constant accusation of clergy one did not like, it's a pretty predictable typonymn, although I can't say I know of many plays that used it. The Restoration and early century plays would prefer variations on "cant" and "trim" as their insults of choice for clergy. Geogre 16:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that paper is mainly about Dodd and his Beauties of Shakespeare, and says "He was ridiculed by Foote as Dr. Simony in The Coseners", so I hope it is more than just a random insult. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

en-admins

Thanks for the tip but it says "=ChanServ= An access level of [5] is required for [INVITE] on #wikipedia-en-admins". Oh well. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. All admins are supposed to have an access level of 5 without having to ask for it. But maybe your IRC nick is different from your wiki account name? I can't even see you on #wikipedia right now. I looked for Interiot, but he seems to be AFK. Anyway, if you go there and put a general question, I'm sure somebody who knows what to do will reply. Bishonen | talk 23:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC).
I had to ask. Mindspillage fixed me. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah he's CBWeather on IRC. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It told me the full CBW was not valid. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
CBW, try asking uuf. DVD+ R/W 00:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
What does IRC stand for? Inane/irate, Ridiculous/retched (yes I know that should have a "w", C......?/comatose Does anybody actually know, it's the sort of thing that may come in useful some day in a game on Christmas day........Giano 21:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I refuse to tell you, we admins have our special terminology that's not for the hoi polloi. But here's a hint: if you want a subject defined, type define colon and then the subject into Google. Thus define:IRC will reveal the secret. Shhhh. Bishonen | talk 21:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC).
It's leet spelling of "Irk." It irks people to use IRC, and it is where they go to irk each other (and talk about penises). (The C stands for chat, which is French for "cat.") (The R stands for Relay, which is what you do when you failed to get pregnant.) Geogre 22:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I haven't got time to talk about colons and organs and offal with you, I'm far too exited by the news from our cousins in America, who are about to put an Italian in the White House (trust me I always read the future accurately - remember the World Cup!) I expect we are probably related (I wonder if she knows?). Well once cousin Nancy is in the west wing - I shall be very important indeed, I shall probably have a very big Cadillac with motorbikes (just like Jimbo's) - Oh happy days. Italia Rules OK. Things are looking up - the world is suddenly a happy place - I may give you, Geogre, BoG and ALoan a ride in my new Caddy - I shall think about it - depending on your future conduct - there is no need to call me Sir....just yet. I'm busy writing an ode: "It's a happy day for the US of A" Giano 22:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for taking care of that, sparing me the need to agonize about whether I would be allowed to remove it myself. As indicated on Heligoland's page, I think everything is straightened out now, but your attention to detail and my Wiki-rep is appreciated. :) Newyorkbrad 23:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Agonize about whether you would be allowed to...oh, please. There is such a thing as taking the "respectable" thing into the realm of the ridiculous, you know! Bishzilla 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC).
I didn't say I would have agonized very long. :) Newyorkbrad 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
See, I would have left it as a badge of shame for the *other* guy... Probably with a snarky comment beneath. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. But editors who are dedicated enough to spend hours on RC patrol have to be forgiven if they mess up once in awhile. Newyorkbrad 00:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well sure. If you're not a blood-thirsty animal hell-bent on eternal revenge for the smallest transgressions, like me, that makes sense. :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello there, Bunchzilla, how nice to see you. Brad [nostalgically], you won't believe this, but I can remember the days when young Raisins here was as respectable as you are now! What happen, eh? Bishonen | talk 01:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC).

That bird thing

The moving and twitching things on this talk page make me cry and fold up into the fetal position, but I love the deadpan humour in your awarding an always-on-top animated bird thing to KillerChihuahua for campaigning against those things. Thank you for making my day a bit more surreal! — Saxifrage ✎ 21:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen | talk 21:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC).

RFC

Just so you know, the recent note on Talk:Ecological economics was what prompted me to remove the RFC listing, since I eventually figured out that was why the other fellow came to the page in the first place and wanted to forestall any more timewasting. Sorry to cause the confusion, and a belated thanks for backing me up on that.

And a minor correction: User:Swedenborg isn't new, and has been pushing this issue for the last year or two, including trying to recreate his pet cause as an article under a similar name when the original was protected against recreation. --Calton | Talk 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Those listings aren't supposed to stay up indefinitely, I presume. It was from September. I only noticed after I posted that the Swedenborg account has in fact been editing for a year, though not very actively. What can I say--he seemed new. I don't get the impression that you need any admins to help you keep the POV warriors at bay, but please consider letting me know if there's some major blocking issue, like that meatpuppetry thing. I kind of can't face watching Talk:Ecological economics. Bishonen | talk 00:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

J'ai un question!

I have no idea if that it spelled correctly, but I was wondering how people on this site become administrators? I'm kinda curious. Do they have to pay? Or are they all founders of the site? Oh, and how long has Wikipedia been around for? Never mind, I'll look that up myself. But I'm still uber curious about how stuff works on here. --Dakltit

To become an admin, all you have to do is be a trusted, experienced user and pay $1,500 into Jimbo's bank account. The last bit is a secret, don't tell anybody. You can check out the process of adminmaking on the page WP:RFA if you like. I see that those rude posts from you are still on Calton's page, although you have posted a sort of apology. I'm going to assume good faith--that you didn't know what I meant by removing them, or didn't know how--and remove them myself. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 14:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

A cure

Some echinacea, which cures the common cold.

You know, I go to the trouble of uploading photos, and I then figure out what tag I have to use, where I have to put it, etc., and some image nut changes the template tag box template tag language, etc., and suddenly everything is subject to deletion. It's not subject to deletion because its copyright status has changed, but because some fiddler came up with a wayz kewel template. Geogre 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Awww. Thank you, dear. I wish that severed dinosaur head would stop rotating on top of the flowers, but what can you do. They're lovely and I feel very cured. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC).
If you're cured, please stay cured, but see echinacea for a dissenting view. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Lies, lies, all lies and CIA propaganda! The AMA and Psychiatric industry are trying to keep you from knowing the truth and listening to the prophets who know. I know some Peruvian dudes who are over 200 years old and can fly, man, and they only eat cone flowers and mushrooms! Geogre 21:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 9#List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded". You may have a view on this. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Thank you. I expected that to happen when the page was new. The nomination is very well expressed, indeed it pinpoints what I thought was funny about the notion at he time. Add to that that WP:NOT parody, not even a Parody of Lists, and it's a pretty obvious delete. I'll just let it take its chances. [/me goes off to gather my sockfarm to vote Keep.] Bishonen | talk 22:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC).
I wouldn't have particularly noticed the AfD nomination (I'm not much of a participant on the deletion pages) except that I happened to have clicked on your "favorites" link on your userpage today and noticed that you'd written a list. Serendipity, I suppose. Newyorkbrad 22:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Dang. I saw "warning" in the edit summary and thought someone was warning her not to add annoying hopping cheerful little birds to people's pages. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Would that someone would. Would that someone would. (Or at least make them stay put in a box somewhere and not blot out text.) Geogre 02:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wuh

So, is it Karl Werner or Verner? Danish, mid-19th c. Geogre 14:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Verner, Karl Adolf, according to a roughly contemporary edition of Dansk biografisk lexikon (the Danish DNB). (And DBL uses W in other names in the same volume, as is seen in the table of contents, so it is not just some kind of normalization thing.) up+land 17:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Dang. That's not the answer I was hoping for, as I have this nice Swedish page that says he's a Werner, and I recall learning his law as Werner. Oh, vell. Geogre 17:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ping?

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

pong! KillerChihuahua?!? 01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Ping-Pong Somehow Elicits Macho Posturing. Boo-Ya! How You Like Me Now? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Boo-yah? I can't comprehend the image I have of you with you saying "Boo-Yah!" It's certainly not something I imagine being yelled from this ivory tower. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 06:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I will let you in on a really sad thing -- I do play table-tennis in the office, almost every day, and the fellow I play with and I both take our cues from the article I linked there. I am the Ponginator, I am King Pong, you are going down! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
"I will slap your little white ball into a place where you'll never get it?" Mr. Freud would cancel the rest of the day's appointments. Geogre 12:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC on Mattisse (me) re Starwood & Rosencomet

I have just received notification that a Requests for comment/Mattisse has been opened against my behavior regarding articles related to Rosencomet and Starwood Festival. Since I have seen your name in the edit summaries I am bringing this RFC to you attention. You may not want to get involed as it is very complicated. Thank you! Mattisse(talk) 14:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You may be interested in another and related case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival. Thaks! Mattisse(talk) 14:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


At last the fire is out

Geogre says, "Burn, baby, burn," and "Congratulations, Bishonen.
User:Ganymead presents Bishonen with the Flaming Award for her article on a big, British Flamer.


Look, guys. Thank you, but there's nothing about the article or the FAC or the FA that I like, OK? Too much ugliness. I don't want to think about it. Nice icon there, Geogre! Bishonen | talk 18:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

We congratulate you anyway, so there. (I did need a shave that day, didn't I?) (You know it's me, because no one could make up something like that.) (Fun with Photoshop.) Geogre 19:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of London history, I just looked at Newgate Prison and was surprised at how short it was. I assume much more could be written about that. And why is Newgate novels a red link? up+land 20:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Bishonen Sweatheart, just cut the crap. Fire is one of the best , most researched, and most professional pages on Wikipedia to date (rivalled only by John Vanbrugh said with no hint of modesty) you know that, I know that, and anyone who does not know it, is not fit to read it. So be happy, and accept the congratulations on a fine exemplary job, well done! Oh and BoG's maps were fantastic too Giano 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mood 02 meets real life

Okay, I know: it should be "Josef". But close enough. Keep it in mind when you and El C, or Giano, or Freply, finally get around to tying the knot. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And then there will be need of "Thomas Beckett" in Smallville. I took a photo of his sign but now cannot find it. Geogre 20:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Does he by any chance make very expensive jackets for women? Giano 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
That I don't know, but I was always trying to organize a drunken procession to his offices, with each of us telling stories along the walk. It never happened, and I heard he was first class anyway. Geogre 01:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Careful there, that's a real identifiable, presumably living person you're talking about on the Internet here. Newyorkbrad 01:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Dang. Then again, I was reporting a received opinion truthfully, with neither malice aforethought nor awareness of his continuing in business in that place (which would be unusual, if he were, as he had left before I did). Therefore, he could not be identified as a business, and he was regarded as personally unpleasant. If I meet Bob, and I regard him as horrid, can I not say so? If I am reporting my own opinion as opposed to reporting a criminal or untrue quality, do I not have the right of speech? Now, if I go one step away from Bob and say, "I heard from a friend that Bob was dull," would I still not be alright for saying a true thing about a report received? Is it not only actionable when it is malicious, designed to harm business, and designed to ruin reputation (and that can only be the case if the reputation is not true)? As it is, I said only good things. C'est la CYA. Geogre 02:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Despite my profession, I wasn't thinking about this primarily from a legal point of view, just a "do unto others" one. Put it this way: if someone in "real life" encountered me once and found me to be somehow unpleasant (not an unprecedented phenomenon, I assure you), or heard a rumor that I was generally deemed to be a difficult individual to deal with, I wouldn't think it was appropriate for him to identify me by name in the context of a digression and gratuitously state that uncorroborated, bare opinion for the whole world to read on the Internet. Now granted, in this instance we are dealing with a relatively common name, so it's possible the issue would never come up - and then again, maybe in a week if this thread remains here, a Google search by a prospective client for [that guy's first name] [that guy's last name] [the town he is or was in] would yield this page as the number one result. Would that be a Good And Fair Thing, do you think? Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
To tell the truth, I wouldn't worry about it, given his profession. He must be pretty prepared for that. By putting his name on a sign, he was already placing it in the realm of thoroughfare speculation. This is why I am intolerant of people who wish to put one foot into the public sphere, as if, making themselves public, they can retain ownership of their public character. This is aggravated by the fact that the name would draw attention from anyone even dimly aware of British history (or a Pulitzer Prize winning novel that was also an Academy Award winning movie). However, the duration of the evil was now so brief that I doubt a Google cache is going to get it, and the very coincidence of his name with a more famous individual means a great unlikelihood that he'll be able to advertise on the web anyway. Geogre 03:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I retain ownership of my public character, at least I'd like to, after a fashion, having been vouched for as "respectable" just above by the proprietress of this very page. But I do agree that my concern was probably more theoretical than real in this instance. And now I'll hush before we have to start paying Bishonen rent for this space. :) Newyorkbrad 03:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Bishzilla (talk · contribs)

Is Bishzilla an alternate account of yours? I encountered it earlier and was confused over what to do since it's supposed to be indefinitely blocked. --Coredesat 07:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, Kylu cleared it up for me. --Coredesat 07:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, Taxman cleared it up for me. I indefblocked the impostor account myself back in February. and recently Taxman nuked it (seeing it was abusive, blocked, and had a grand total of one edit) so I could use it. Please see newbie Zilla's userpage. I just edited it as myself, to remove all doubts. I should have done that to begin with, sorry. I was in fact convinced I had done it. Bishonen | talk 07:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC).
Not a problem. And I meant that Kylu had explained it to me, because I didn't know what the deal was earlier, so it was confusing to me when I encountered it. Thanks for clearing up the remaining confusion. :) --Coredesat 09:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

DELETION Help?!

Bishonen,

Cholmes75 deleted Ill Bethisad on an expired Prod ... I don't recall ever seeing it, and frankly, I'm annoyed that the page was deleted when it's stood for 3 years and while the group may not be notable in Cholmes75's mind, it's _well_ known in Linguistical circles. Should I even DRV it? Bo-Lingua 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

PRODs can be contested by anyone, even after deletion: see WP:PROD#Contesting_after_deletion. I have undeleted. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Bunchofgrapes has restored it, since you're contesting the PROD. But you'd better watch the page now, if you feel strongly about it, as I would expect WP:AFD by the person who prodded it to be the next step. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

Bishzilla's Compliment

You seem to be used to receiving compliments on your insightfulful questions, are you sure that's healthy? Here's my maiden effort: are you crazy or do you merely think I am?[13] (Moved from userpage—please excuse a new user and get a talkpage link in your sig for great justice.) Bishzilla 06:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

Thank you for your kind remarks. Any compliments received by the undersigned are undeserved, I am sure, but I've had my share of cross words directed at me as well, so the balance helps make life here worthwhile. As for "insightfulful," I do my poor best, even as I sit here wondering whether "insightfulful" is an intensifier or a typo. It's to be expected that Bishzilla would speak loudly and repetitively, of course.
As for the substance of the matter, I feel empathy for a potential candidate who is lucky enough to receive multiple requests to co-nominate from a number of respected users who are either perceptive enough or deluded enough to believe the candidate might make a decent admin. Today on Rfa-talk we read that there are some who will oppose for too many co-noms, and others who might withhold support based on the candidate's perceived ownership issue with respect to his or her own RfA. One person on the thread made the suggestion that I anticipated, to the effect that having to keep everyone happy in those circumstances is a good practical exam question for a future administrator, but I don't really agree with that. I suppose there are those who think RfA should be a gauntlet, but I don't think it ought to require navigating between Scylla and Charybdis.
My own view is that with all the harshness that pervades the Wiki (User:Konstable's flameout over the weekend being the latest development that makes me sad), we have far worse problems to be addressed than too many kind words, on RfA or pretty much anywhere else. I have also found that not all co-noms are repetitive, and some are helpful in addressing a candidate's qualities from differing vantage points, and unless the candidate has blatantly lobbied for people to co-nominate in an effort to distract attention from some serious flaw, I don't see a problem with them.
As for the signature, I will look into changing it. The Wikipedian who initially greeted me several months ago (you may check who it was if you like) failed to mention the matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It reckon "insightfulful" was onomatopoeia for first one, and then the other, of the great feet coming down on Tokyo. "FUL..! FUL..!" Not much left where those have passed. But the substance, Brad, that she meant to point to, in her rough-and-ready way, was your reading of my own post as implying that I thought it was a good thing that early and thoughful RFA !votes get lost in the rush and forgotten about. You haven't responded to my in situ protest, and, though Zilla does tend to great frankness, in this case I, famous for my tact, will endorse her imputation of insanity. I mean... what? PS, I see it was poor old Karmafist, yes, what about it? He's banned, and for pretty good reasons.. but I still think he meant well. And he does have a talkpage link in his sig! Bishonen | talk 19:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

Well, "a good thing," that is, in the sense that if one argues that B is a better choice than A, then one posits the consequences of B are in some sense better than those of A. Here, for "A" read having a bunch of co-noms; for "B" read letting the would-be co-nommers post early in the Support section instead. Your view, as I understand it, is that the possibility of the rationale of early !votes being overlooked, while obviously not "good" in the abstract, is easier to accept than the negatives of multiple co-nominations, whatever those might be.
If you believe the matter is unclear in situ then will return thither and clarify appropriately after luncheon, although I believe the thread of the discussion has moved somewhere past that point by this point.
The irony of the Karmafist welcome to me is that I got the normal and standard newbie greetings; not for me the "political struggle" welcome of Bunchofgrapes v. Karmafist ArbCom fame. Having missed the indoctrination, here I sit, hiveminded with the rest of you. Cheers, Newyorkbrad 19:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Man. It's a problem that they're forgotten. This problem in its turn exacerbates, not alleviates, the problem of the conoms' greater pretensions, as the conoms through the forgottenness of the !votes get to even more emphatically call out, and enact, their greater importance than mere votes. Two tiers arise, distinguished not by meritoriousness of argument, but by mere form. It would only be a good thing if all good arguments were conoms instead of !votes. Heigh ho, now I'm depressed. I thought that was clear as daylight and it turns out to be incomprehensible. :-( [Stops nagging, not before time.] No, no, don't go back, far from worth it. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC).
Oh dear, I was going back just as you were telling me not to go back. And you mustn't, as my significant one would tell you, allow yourself to be depressed through my thick-headedness. I do take your point a little more clearly on this articulation, besides. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


My RFC

Thanks for responding. The whole thing seems to be coming down to the issue of Starwood Festival and its suite of associated articles having so many spam links. If you could weigh in on that it would be nice but not critical. No one seems worried that I'm a sock puppet. So, thanks! I understand. Mattisse(talk) 19:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You will want to check your mail

Good stuff. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Coolness! Bishonen | talk 21:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC).
Yes, good, better, how about also positioned more in the middle, not so far down? Leave it to you, but wouldn't it look more persistent? Bishonen | talk 21:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

If I solemnly promise not to remove animated gifs from your pages, regardless of how annoying and spinny and flappy they may be, or how badly they make my little puppy head hurt, and limit myself to sad comments like Giano, will you call the zombie off? You're scaring visitors to my talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sad? Did you ever see anybody more graciously delighted with a pretty gift than Giano with his colibri, which is still flapping away on his page? Hmmm. Oh, you don't have to do all that, just read your mail. [/Me stuffs zombie chicken in pocket to scare the little ArbCom.] Bishonen | talk 00:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
Goodness, you're right, it was Geogre. How could I have gotten who was sad and who was delighted so thoroughly confused? Going to obediently read mail now... KillerChihuahua?!? 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sad? You want sad? 1. I remember when I used to get e-mail. 2. I'm way too young to have the latest health problem. Geogre 02:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, you got an e-mail on the same subject, Geogre, and you got it first. I can't help it that it kind of died. For Capital Geogre, only the capital SAD? I hope not, sweetheart! Bishonen | talk 02:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
I did? Things definitely die in my inbox, but that's because of the atmosphere. How about all-season radials and all-season disorders? Nah, this is more out of season old man's disease. The capital? I haven't any money. I shall open the box and see what's in there. :-) Geogre 11:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Great fire of london

Congratulations on the FA. It's a cracking article despite all the FAC sparks. (groan......sorry) --Mcginnly | Natter 00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. You mean it was a crackling article? Bishonen | talk 01:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
Looking forward to reading the finished entry! Best, El_C 01:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You mean yuo'll read it once the present stub has been expanded with a bit of concrete information? Yeah, that's a good idea. Bishonen | talk 02:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
I realize it's a work-in-progress; (no) rush! El_C 02:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

West Wycombe Park FAC

Doh! that's what tiredness does to you. Although if I remember from about 2 months or so back there used to be a template or something at the top of the page to say it had been closed!!! AH well. Ill remove it. Is there anyway to put the page up for review again. There really wasn't that much discussion and, though it's a nice page, I have seen better ones not make FA status. (all those images and red links). It just appeared that Giano's prestige as a FA writer was the main reason it passed (plus of course the quality of the writing). Ill raise the issues on the talk page anyway.... cheers --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 12:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Do you have something specific? The fact that you don't like it is sort of irrelevant, in that we all have to come to that point where we begin to employ criteria rather than taste, where we have to recognize that not all that we like is good nor all that we do not like bad. The article passed many voters, went through revision, and was not treated reverently by the voters at all. The theory that it passed because of its author is absolutely bizarre. Those comments were not fawning, and the author has plenty of people (apparently) who will oppose because of outside matters. Fortunately, most of those could tell that there were no legitimate grounds for objecting. Geogre 13:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "There used to be a template or something at the top of the page"—I don't think so, I believe you must be thinking about some other kind of transcluded page. FACs never had a "closed" template as far as I know. The Featured article review is the place to put a FA up for review, but you're—obviously—not supposed to do that as soon as it's been promoted. I'm sure you can see the unreasonableness of prolonging the FAC process indefinitely by essentially moving a page from FAC to FAR. Anyway, it's all in the guidelines at the top of the FAR page: three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval. I don't quite understand your point about the page sailing through because of "Giano's prestige", as FAC definitely doesn't work like that. Also, the reason Giano has prestige is that he's good. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
  • In a nutshell: Giano has prestige for the same reason that the page sailed through - because he's good. Very good. You complain that "there was little discussion" - perhaps that was because of the rather stunningly simple maxim that if it ain't broke, don't fix it and Giano's work is not broken. Hopefully this will help clarify the perceived lack of harsh criticism. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh I've only just seen this - I feel quite touched Giano 18:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

French theatre

You Geogre and BoG know about these things what does "cage de scène" meen in English - is it "the wings" it's for the ledoux copy-edit Giano 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Non Frankoi linguarum dice. However, I'd guess that it is the wings, yes. The boxlike place for scenery. I thought everyone in the UK spoke French now, so perhaps one of them can answer. Geogre 13:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Non non mon ami. Tout la monde ne parlez pas la francais en Angleterre, wir alle Amerikanisch sprechen weil wir so viele Hamburgen essen. OK und danke schon Giano 14:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Ever hear of Wikipedia? The free online encyclopedia, available in several languages including French? Consulting that I would guess that "cage de scène" is not the wings but the the part of the stage occupied by the actors and sets. Paul August ☎ 14:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
this site seems to suggest this is the case - It's a Canadian thesaurus - WT stands for whole term and FT stands for french term. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks I'll check it out later, at the moment I have another Canadian fish to fry! Giano 15:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, just a sec - looking at the definitions of gridiron - "In theatres, the gridiron is a metal framework suspended above the stage from which lights and other items are hung" - the cage de scène - that makes good sense to me now. I thought we call this the "lighting rig" in the UK, gridiron seems north american, I'll ask my father he'll know, he's a noted thespian (poor mother) --Mcginnly | Natter 15:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
IS HE?...I've always wanted to know someone famous - Gosh - do you remember that Miss World contest, when the interviewer was asking all the contestants their ambitions, and they were all saying "help little children" - "work with the poor" - "pay for my granny's opperation" - and "Get laid by someone famous!" I wish I was famous - I did once sit near Wendy Craig in the theatre at a pantomime when I was a child, and once played bridge in the same room as Princess Diana so I suppose I am almost famous. Giano 16:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh Christ! I hope I'm not almost old enough to be Mcginnly's father Giano 16:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I once met Michael Stipe when he attended a play I was performing in--such a nice man and with such beaitful blue eyes! Anyway, in the states, we refer to this as the truss, lighting truss or grid. This is used to support lighting instruments, curtains, scenic elements and/or the fly system. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I tried to run over Michael Stipe...several times, in fact, but he always got his little blue bicycle out of the road in time. I met him and the rest of the REMmers. I know many current and past rock stars, and I held hands with Bono once (really), but my favorite among them is Billy Bragg. My most famousest meet was Bill Clinton. I had an interesting life, but that's all over. Geogre 16:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
But this is from the Ledoux page, they didnt have lighting in the 18th century, just a few old jam pots with candles in I expect Giano 16:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they had quite a bit of lighting...often the scenic elements: flats and such would have banks of candles on the back, large chandeliers would hang above the stage to illuminate the actors as well as footlights. If you've seen the movie Amadeus, there is a scene onstage where Mozart meets the Emperor following the performance of one of his operas. If you look closely, you can see the banks of candles behind the flats. The chandeliers over the stage began to be replaced in larger theatre towards the end of the 18th century. These were replaced with light from the wings and footlights, all of which utilized relflectors. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

When I said noted - I meant mostly by himself and the rest of the family - He's an Am-drammer you see. Usually at this time of year we're all forced to endure several "extraordinary renditions" in the name of family unity - having heard his "Pirates of Penzance" last year, I did think about suggesting that the white noise at Guantanamo is replaced with a hi-fi recording. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The image of some poor soul being driven mad by "I am the very model of a modern major general," "There is beauty in the bellows of the blast," or "Climbing over rocky mountain" brings a smile to my face. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get you a ticket; grimaces are usually what are on our faces, but I wish you luck. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Personal Attacks"

Telling the truth is not a personal attack. Furthermore, you are not welcome to edit my personal page. What I have posted about Allister is very much the truth. And for your information, Allister vandalized another persons main page accusing that person of being a sockpuppet of me. Stay out of things you are not involved with. Alyeska 22:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny how your making my argument for me by blocking me from editing my own user page. Alyeska 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant. You make an accusation against me without actualy looking up the history, and when confronted by the person you've made the accusation to you just try to silence me by locking my page from editing and refuse to discuss the issue. Alyeska 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC) User:Alyeska

You need to stop telling experienced users that intervening against your policy violations is not their business, because it is. As a Wikipedia administrator, I am involved with any policy violations I see on the site. So are other experienced users: Calton, for instance, knows more about policy than many admins, and obviously a whole lot more than you do. Since you ignored my civil request to not restore the personal attack on your userpage, I have removed it again and, this time, protected the page from editing except by administrators. Please let me know when you're ready to keep your userapge reasonably civil (it's far from polite as it is, either, but not restoring the attack against Alistair is the only thing I'm insisting on at this point in time). I won't take the trouble to post links for you about the userpage policies you're violating, since Calton already has, and you don't seem to have bothered to click on them. Please read his links, they contain all you need to know about the amount of control you have of your userpages. I also urgently invite you to review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please don't make the editing climate here unpleasant for other people. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
I stopped reading the rules after Alistair demonstrated he wasn't following the rules he is charged with enforcing. I stopped reading the rules when people said "well the rules let you do this" and then afterwards someone found a contrary rule just to get my information removed. You obviously read my opinion on my page. You know I have zero confidence in Wiki policy given my past history of being abused by it. Alyeska 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've read your opinion on your page, but I haven't studied the history you seem to want me to (I'm not even sure what history--that between you and Alistair, or what?), and quite frankly I don't have the time of the motivation. You see, I don't need to do that in order to know that you don't get to edit here in contempt of Wikipedia policy, as you do. Your generalized attack on Alistair is unacceptable regardless of circumstances and background. If the policies are too much to get your head round, I would have thought it made sense for you to take the word of people who do know about them—people like Calton, or like me—rather than spitting at them. If you consider an administrator is abusive or unfair—again, I know nothing about the conflict between you and Alistair—you can post an informal complaint on WP:ANI, or open a request for comment on him. To decide to defy policy is not one of your options. Bishonen | talk 23:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
You have my word that I won't mention Alistair by name. Infact, I am going to remove the section in question entirely because its been more trouble then its worth. The topic is a source of irritation for me. However, having typed up the topic has made it a far greater irritation that I quite simply don't want to deal with any longer. Fair enough? Alyeska 23:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Not by name and not by hint either, please. OK, I've unprotected. Bishonen | talk 23:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

Thanks

Hi, Bishonen. I was surprised to see you back in the TM article after having been gone several months. I think you made some good edits. I apologize for changing the word "claims" in a couple instances where you made edits. I agree with the guideline on Words to avoid that this work detracts from NPOV.

You're right in noting that it's odd that the organization doesn't have a name. The problem is that there are many branches, and there really isn't any umbrella term. I'm not sure what to do about this.

I noticed that you used the British spelling "practise". Is there a guideline on American vs British spelling? Thanks.TimidGuy 02:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's on my watchlist, and I get an impulse every now and then. I've been watching you improve the article a lot, I don't know how you have the patience (patiense?). Is there a guideline? Good grief, there's a wikitreatise and a battlefield, as I'm sure you know, TactfulGuy. ;P I didn't intend to change American to British, but only, according to my lights, to change the noun "practice" to the verb "practise". I understand now that to make such a distinction in spelling the parts of speech is British. Please change it back. It's not that I want "claims", it's just that "says" looks a little, well, style-wise, it's kind of childish, to my ears, in this kind of context. I'd hardly ever suggest "heightening" the style, I'm against all that, but honestly, in this case... How about "states"? Bishonen | talk 07:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

Thanks so much, Bishonen, for your kind words. : ) It means so much to me coming from an experienced editor and administrator like you. And I agree that "states" is a good choice. Thanks again. TimidGuy 12:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

New at this

I'd be happy to receive your help in properly sharing my information on the page. I'm completely new at this. I notice that statements counter to the TM position are "allowed" on the page, and there are several areas where I think such statements should be added.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanaats (talk • contribs)

Please talk to TimidGuy, Tanaats. I'm only a drive-by editor of TM. Bishonen | talk 07:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

RfC on RPJ

Hi. I'm advocating a case on behalf of a user who is experiencing numerous problems with RPJ. I can see from RPJ's talk page that you have interacted with him in the past. If you have a moment, would you be so kind as to head over to the RfC page and leave any guidance that might help in resolving this dispute. Thanks so much, and have a great day! →Bobby← 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that I warned him, then blocked him, for personal attacks and trolling back in April. (His charming comment on my block warning is still right there on his talkpage.) It looks from the RfC and the block log like his behavior hasn't changed any. I wonder if it may be getting time for a community ban on this persistently unpleasant editor, rather than bothering the ArbCom with an obvious case? Let me think on't. Bishonen | talk 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC).
Thank you for taking the time to comment on the RfC. For the record I have asked the Mediation Cabal to get involved, but only to bolster the case before taking it to the ArbCom. However, if this step is not necessary, I would certainly consider doing the Arbitration now. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsquire (talk • contribs)
Do it now. If you cast your eye over a few old RFAR requests—look in the History of WP:RFAR—I think you'll find that cases this obvious do get accepted, rather than sent back with a request for prior mediation. I think the arbcom has realized, perhaps a little belatedly, that it's unfair to make good-faith editors jump through that pointless extra hoop before they can get POV warriors and abusers arbitrated. Arbitrators know that productive users deserve their protection and support. If I were you, I would more or less just link to the RFC, which is already very telling, and describe in a few words what's happening on it. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration concerning RPJ. Feel free to add any comments you feel are necessary. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right it is misleading to label you as involved. Sorry about that, it was inadvertant. I'm going to change the heading between editors who participated in RfC, and editors who have been actively invovled. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, it's not that I mind either way, I just wanted to point out that I didn't have any exclusive info of my own to add. I'm glad you decided to file the RFAR, and I hope they take my ahem ahem HINT and are a bit quick about the vote. You guys have had to put up with this for too long. Bishonen | talk 01:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

A few thoughts

A few things, since I've taken ten minutes to take a crap and think.

  1. No, I was not "edit warring," nor were my actions out of hostility toward Mongo. I harbor no hostility toward Mongo, but other things which I will address momentarily. I do believe - and still believe - he once again abused his bit to silence something he a) is too close to and b) had no right or responsibility to do. That's why I re-added it, that's why I added a comment to it.
  2. I am frustrated that Mongo's automatically the good guy and anyone who dares stand up to him is a troll or acting in a bad faith way. If we cannot question the actions of admins, those people shouldn't be admins, period.
  3. I do have legitimate frustrations with him that spill over when you come over and threaten to block me for asking an actual, legitimate question. Having dealt with him lie about me and my motives does not sit well, and when I'm again accused of wrongdoing with no evidence to the contrary, I get irritated. Wouldn't you?
  4. However you feel about his talk page, he was still wrong and I would appreciate you fixing the problem.

I'd appreciate a response. I don't recall us having any bad blood, and I'd like to keep it that way, but part of that has to do with a little give and take instead of what we just experienced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I seem to be expected to fix everything on the site today! I neither can nor want to. My concern with you is quite limited: MONGO's page and your reverts on it. I can't call twice reinserting a comment that you knew to be highly unwelcome anything but edit warring. You obviously knew other people kept removing it because it was unwelcome. In view of that, I'd call an edit summary like "ain't yours, either. If he wants to remove my comments, he's free to do so" plain wikilawyering. What would you call it, Jeff? I'm afraid I'm not going to research what's been happening at AFD and/or DRV (all I've gotten is hints, yet, that that's what this is about—I could be wrong, you could be talking about someting quite different). They're the least familiar parts of the project to me (being as I dislike them too much to familiarize myself), and I don't have a practical chance of doing it. But please note that I also don't regard it as necessary, I can see MONGO's page history without that lot. No, there's no bad blood between us, I've always regarded you as a decent user. I hope you take my points in good faith and in the spirit they're meant. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC).
I personally don't think anyone else should be defining what's unwelcome when it comes to anyone else's administrative actions, but maybe that's just me. What do I call leaving it up to him to remove comments? It's interesting you call it wikilawyering (there's that word again, go figure), but actually letting him decide if a legitimate question about his actions is worth keeping around.
I certainly understand your points - my gripe comes from your apparent knee-jerk (just my POV, take it as that) warning to block me if I dare ask a question, because other people view it as unwelcome. There's a lot more going on than perhaps you are aware of, and my ham-fisted assumption that you knew the details was probably my fault. I still think you're wrong, and I still think you should actually do something about it, but you don't want to get involved and I reluctantly accept that. Seeing someone I respect follow along with the deceits that have been perpetuated is incredibly frustrating is all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
MONGO had himself already removed the question from Alexjohnc3. Then other administrators removed it again, after it had been restored by Alexjohnc3. You restored that question, Jeff, with a comment of your own. The comment was new, but the question had been deleted by the person whose talk page it was; this shows clearly that it was unwelcome. Frankly, I can't understand why people are so eager to jump in and replace something that a user has removed from his talk page. I've never done that, even in cases where I, as an administrator, had issued a warning to a user who was being highly disruptive. He removed it; I knew he had seen it; I would feel free to block if the disruptive behaviour continued. What good does it do to Wikipedia to annoy someone by forcing him to keep an unwanted message on his talk page? Surely MONGO deserves as much respect as a disruptive troll who has been warned by an administrator that he's facing a block? AnnH ♫ 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what he removed was something entirely different, and was actually removed before MONGO deleted the talk page. If he removed Alex's comment, I wouldn't have pressed it further and taken a different route. Since it was other people deciding what was best, I decided to safely ignore it, since I think Mongo's capable of protecting himself. Now, if you want to talk respect, I'll be glad to talk to you about it, but I don't think you really want to get in the middle, as much as I'd love a neutral party to step in and end the nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry for talking over your head, Bishonen. I know some people find it irritating to have their talk page hijacked by two people talking to each other and ignoring the person whose talk page it is.)
Jeff, that was my mistake. I saw this edit summary, which, very improperly, accused MONGO of vandalism, and saw that it was rolled back by an admin. I saw that the user, whom I did not know, had posted again. I clicked on that diff, saw that it was yet another post on a subject that I know MONGO does not want messages about, assumed that the user was just reinstating something, and then rolled him back. I would at least have used an edit summary if I had not thought that it was a reposting of an unwanted message. That said, it's quite obvious that MONGO does not want those posts on his talk page, regardless of the possible good faith of those who have posted them. There's also little danger that he'll fail to see something important. Most users check the history of their pages when they get new messages, and it's already clear that MONGO is aware of what was going on at his page. Finally, there are some people on Wikipedia whom I trust to make a judgment about what I may or may not want on my talk page, and to remove posts accordingly, when appropriate.[14] I'm not aware of being on MONGO's "trusted" list, but it's quite clear that he was not displeased at my intervention.
(Apologies again to Bishonen!) AnnH ♫ 01:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
For talking over my head? On my page? Haha. You must be new in these parts.

Bishonen | talk 01:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

Bird

Excellent, KazakhPol 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Bishonen | talk 01:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

Jim Lahey meets Lord Mayor, Sir Thomas Bloodworth

It is little known that on 4 September 1666, trailor park supervisor / drunken bastard / hero Jim Lahey, who at the time was visiting London for some Dominion trailer park supervisors conference or another, had met Lord Mayor, Sir Thomas Bloodworth. The following exchange ensued:

My Lord, I find thy face apelike and thy form mishappen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possible that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat? (not you, Randy!) ... Thy semeth wroth, my Lord, or mayhap thine unseemly breeding hath robbed thy tongue of human speech. I do percieve, my Lord, that thou art afflicted with cowerdice as well as lack of breeding, for, in truth, no man of honour would endure such deadly insult as those which I delivered unto thee without some response. Therefore, I fear I must goad thee further.

El_C 03:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

But Bloodworth retorted sharply: "A woman could piss it out! I taunt you in the French language! I expose myself to your aunt!" Bishonen | talk 09:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC).
I certainly pray that goat wasn't Sicelia! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 04:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for looking out for me.--MONGO 05:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem User

I apologize in advance if I have incorrectly alerted you. There is a problem over in the Yeti article, user "Davkal" is seems to be show sign of old behaviour. There seems to be no arguing with him/her, persistent (which in itself is not a problem), aggressive and now is in the process of editing attributable text out of the article. I have tried to accommodate on more than one occasion and reword a very small piece of, quite important text from a book. I have single headedly provided neear all the references and citations, however in the case of John Napier (primatologist) a scientist of some note and John Angelo Jackson comments from experience are being blotted out. I have only really added short pieces of text, but most the data and non of my POV. The article in reality is about POV as people are observing and then interpreting sightings into something they recognize, which is not wrong, but there has never been any corroboration and so as many reportes have written, the phenomena is not soley concerned with (and its a minor point) apes, the article should be inclusive of the indigenous animals life. At ttis time Davkal is removing what he thinks is fit according to his rather retaliatory and self absorbed muddy thinking (thats my POV I am again sorry). I am asking you as to how to deal withit, I know just reverting will just compound the situation given his past behaviour. I have stopped doing work on the Yeti as a result. I have on two occasions in Kangchenjunga and Himalaya a large amount of background work to bring more to the artcles. articleOnce again many apologies if I've done this in the wrong manner. (Gowron 14:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

Appealing to me is fine, except that any admonition from me is likely to get Davkal's back up, since we have a history and, at a guess, he still resents my previous admin actions against him. I hope you don't give up editing Yeti, as you clearly have a lot to add; as far as I can see, consensus is on your side, which means Davkal can and will be sanctioned if he edit wars for his version. But I understand how disspiriting it must be to have somebody fight your good edits every inch of the way. I've put a note on Talk:Yeti, and if the same problems continue, I'll put up an appeal on WP:ANI for admins who don't have a history with Davkal to watch the page. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC).
I can't thankyou enough for assistance, that is all that I can ask. I'm not a good writer but I am able to do research, I do have a lot of family connections with experience of the Himalaya and also the early books on the subject or the Yeti. I can also see that you have gone through the article. I'm not a good performer at this sort of confrontation and I think its a good idea if I go away for a while and just watch, I tried today but as you can see I failed (Wikipedia is compulsive viewing. Again many thanks for the having a look at this problem it is appreciated, however it seems like an uphill struggle at time. (Gowron 22:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC))
Hmm. I see Davkal has had some behavior problems before. Perhaps you can counsel a process by which we may arbitrate to subdue his antics in Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon‎. - LuckyLouie 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack blocks

See what you think of the answer I gave to the question about blocks for personal attacks on my candidates' questions. Geogre 22:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

He did not say that! Stop rewriting history!! It is an affront to all trailer park supervisors and trailer park supervisor assistants!!! P.S. !!!!!!! El_C 22:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Revisionist! OK, Geogre, I'll go long too:
  • 1. There are far, far too many blocks issued for personal attacks, and it seems to be escalating. I've seen people PA-blocked for expressing differences of opinion on content. What may be actually worse than the blocks are the unfounded accusations of PAs, both as admin threats and as manipulation by other users. I've seen editors consistently play the PA card to avoid having to engage with a content discussion. You might take a look at my input on this issue in the RFAR on His excellency; it was precisely this aspect that stirred me up so much that I wittingly exposed myself to a shitstorm. At the Islam articles, the manipulative redefinition of disagreement as PA had successfully shut up all opponents (except, indeed, His excellency) and left the POV of one side in undisturbed possession. I tried to edit one of these articles myself, mildly as all getout, and got told that all my talkpage arguments (which had taken me frigging hours to write) were mere personal attacks and therefore needn't be addressed; reverting me was all that needed to be done. The talkpage was full of such unreasonable put-downs from the reigning troika, towards passing anons and established editors alike. If they didn't write on Talk they got reverted because they hadn't written on Talk; if they did write on Talk, they got reverted because their argument there was just a personal attack anyway. Here we see a fine example of how the quality of articles, in this case the Islam articles, can be compromised by this PA nonsense.
  • 2.That said, which I believe fits closely with your own views, I was also glad to see that you specified that disruption, in the sense of unrelentingly making life so unpleasant for good-faith editors that they give up and abandon the article, is a blocking matter. Such disruption often has PAs as a main ingredient. Sam Spade used to do that. The RFC on RPJ that I commented on today is another good example of using PAs as a way of making/attempting to make editors give up. Here we see another fine example of how the quality of articles can be compromised. And it's when PAs are used to disrupt, in this sense of the word, that I personally block for 'em. You do write about this quite clearly, Geogre, but IMO you might consider giving 2 a little more emphasis. 1 and 2 are equally pernicious, but I do believe 2 is more common. Oh, and I also consider unremitting harassment of individual editors to be disruption. Poisoning the editing lives of users is a block reason in my book even if no particular article is being disrupted. It prevents the normal functioning of good-faith, productive editors and there's no reason to put up with it.

Of course I could have made this briefer if I'd had more time. ;-) Bishonen | talk 23:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

All of that is true, and what I wanted to do was highlight "unable to work in a cooperative encyclopedia" as the personality trait that's at the heart of the people who should be blocked for "PA." After all, the ones that are worth a block are not because they contain nasty words, but because what they are demonstrating is an inability to work with other people in any manner. I pointed to Prof02 for that reason. Some people just aren't cut out for this venue. Hell, every author I've ever known has gotten a little edgy when being critiqued, and being rewritten altogether is enough to provoke homicide. How weird do you have to be to sit calmly as the reasonable DNB inspired Eliza Haywood turns into an homage to a transgressive female redefining boundaries of desire? What I see in most of these folks is that they cannot cooperate or compromise, and so they insult and shriek and taunt. It's not because of some damned word or other, but because what they're really illustrating is that they just aren't cut out for this type of website. You're right that I normally do bring up the consequences of the NPA policy and how it is the malleus mallefactorum [we have no article on that! we have no article on that!] of Wikipedia. It meant hunts for numb spots on all the witches, and so some people (I'm thinking of Kelly Martin's recreating a hitlist to see if her opponent would delete it) begin pricking the suspects to see if they complain. I should add that, as it is part of my core belief on the subject. Geogre 01:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
We do have an article on Malleus Maleficarum, if that is what you are referring to. (We do, on the other hand, not have an article on Ming porcelain, but there is an article on Ming vases, which makes clear to the world that the only thing relevant to mention about Ming porcelain is its occasional occurrence in video games... And a lot of people seem to think that is fine. I am annoyed.) Uppland 05:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
We do have Chinese porcelain. It however, doesn't mention Ming porcelain. I'm sure there's a reason, and I'm sure I don't know what it is. Curious. I'm going to be wondering about that for a while. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess I think of masculine nouns as more sinister than feminine ones, but Google sure has a lot of people making the same mistake I do, and one may wonder why. As for the Ming vase, it's a clearcut case of bias at Wikipedia. I can't believe that they missed the fact that what's really important about them is that the rube character is forever breaking one in a 1960's sitcom! "Jethro, that was a priceless Ming vass!" <Burst of laughter from the laugh track> "I'm sorry I broke your pot." <Roar from the laugh track> I always thought it was weird that Ming the Merciless made "vass"es, and I never could figure out what a "vass" was in the first place, except an object that was easy to break. Geogre 10:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Geogre, I think Tuppland's idea is that you may want to check out this AfD. Best wear the big boots, and you will find your friend the Rube already there. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC).
Noting an illogical quote from WP:NPA, I went edit the policy, and ended up changing the parts of (er, most of) the "Examples that are not personal attacks" section. It feels a bit pointless, I think the entire policy is a disaster area. But anyway, I'm tired of trolls triumphantly telling me that na-hah, they can accuse people of vandalism all they want to and nobody gets to complain, look, it says so here! (Because it's a well-known fact that you're free as the wind to say anything however dumb or untrue as long as it's not a Personal Attack, and nobody gets to criticize you for it! Merely one of the many problems inherent in having the policy at all.) But anyway, I changed this and that and wrote a screed on the talkpage. Geogre, and my dear little salon, please go comment if you're interested. Bishonen | talk 06:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

James Joyce on FAR

Have you seen this? Paul August ☎ 22:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry, it'll take wild horses to get me to WP:FAR. Bishonen | talk 22:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC).
It's going to go to FARC because Filiocht didn't do footnotes to page numbers, when he should really have known that the inmates were soon going to insist that the wardens wear stripes and that we were about to leave the world of encyclopedias far behind and pattern featured articles on college term papers. Geogre 13:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think blown up to that size, we should give him a caption any suggestions? Like: "OK Nerd, just what is your problem?" Giano 22:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Well, I'm fine with the changes except to the last paragraph. The although otherwise it is phrase is both awkward, and I think, overstated. A claim of vandalism, even if false, is not the same think as saying "you are a vandal". I think it's important to maintain the distinction between talking about a users actions and talking about the user. I'm not trying to WikiLawyer this, I just don't like the way you've worded it. I would change it, but I figured I'd just give you the feedback for now. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeti again

Apologies for the intrusion, Davkal has done his worst again and I don't want to fight anymore. However to give you the details of what I had to condense into one sentence in the article (and I said to him/her that to put all the data in the article would become far too long), I've put together the start of a document which clearly goes through all the information in a PDF file. The URL is http://www.cabernet.demon.co.uk/JAJ/TEST/Yeti-3.pdf.

If you have the time or you impartial admins that might be interested in having a look at why a very short statement has caused so much fuss. The document is the start of a chronological treatise of all material from 1832 to 1980. The relevant pagaraph regarding John Angelo Jacksons statement is at the start of page 2. I don't feel I can put that much data into a a Wikipedia article. Many thanks in advance for anything you can do. (Gowron 16:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

You have very interesting material. I'll try to find the time to show you how to best present it (a sample of it) in a Wikipedia article, because Davkal makes a valid point that the short statement is difficult to understand. It's just a couple of tricks, really: the trick of realizing how little the reader knows, plus the trick of never saying anything from yourself, but always from the authoritative source that you're using. As for not putting that much data into a Wikipedia article: I actually don't agree, I feel it would be a pity not to use it all (a bit more concisely put). It would be disproportionate in the present article, yes, but the way to solve that is to create a new, detailed article, called as it might be History of the Yeti myth, and have a summary of it in the article Yeti. Confused? Just look at an example, for instance William Shakespeare. See the section "Plays"? It's got a little notation like this on top:
Main article: Shakespeare's plays
That tells the reader that the section is only a summary of the much fuller "main article" Shakespeare's plays. This is a well-accepted and much-used system; you might think of using it for your material. Anyway, you'll hear from me with some concrete presentation suggestions. Bishonen | talk 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC).
I'm impressed that you've read the the Yeti-3.pdf document, (put together last night and this morning) I agree also that it, the data, should all be used and I'm quite happy to finish the article and put it into a fuller detailed account. I very much appreciate your option, I was becoming quite at a loss as too how to proceed in the face of so much negativity from one source. I did hint at the notion (in the earlier part of the discussion) that the shortness of the comment is the result of drastically distilling a huge amount of factual data, that everything else is taken from, and reported fact into one sentence. Agreed that a new article would have to be more consise or pared down, however I feel that much work could be just target practice for you know who to keep ridiculing, would there be some protection whilst it is being setup. You must know that it can be exhausting writing text which is either previously unseen in some cases or not seen in 30 to 40 years, which are the detailed account of all the text regarding this issue is just dismissed by well who know what? If a new article is setup does it not seem fairer that I should move all the data I've given to the original article. I'm trickless but I would really appreciate like to know how to present a document that can please everybody, I guess thats what politician do all the time. I've had rather too much wine I'm 50 in 25 minutes. Best regards and I'll write again soon. I do appreciate your comment [please keep in touch, however the article is being degraded. (Gowron 23:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC))
Happy birthday! Under the circumstances, you might want to draft a new "history of the yeti" article in your own "sandbox", rather than create it immediately in "mainspace," where anybody can edit it. Sandbox drafting is a common thing to do when you want to write experimentally, I often start articles that way myself. Normally, nobody would interfere with your work in your own "userspace". About Yeti being degraded—well, frankly, articles on subjects such as "cryptids" or whatever are forever in flux, and it can indeed be disspiriting to see them spiral down to a mere reflection of some agenda—or torn apart by different agendas—but often a reaction sets in, and they improve again. If I were you, I'd leave Yeti alone for now and let other people take care of it—the beauty of the wiki system is that when one returns, it very often turns out that somebody did take care of it—and work on your own "main article", until it's ready to be summarized in Yeti. That's just my suggestion, I'm not here to tell you what to do. Anyway, I'll set up that sandbox for you soon, and leave some suggestions in it, and you can see if you like to work that way. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for the congrads, its my 50th and so a little depressed but things will imporve as the chanpagne has just be opened. Thanks also for pragmatic and its ovious you've been there before many times. I'll do as you suggest as seems to be a way of writting without offending. Its a lot of work, so to be sure do you really think the subject merits it and the probable final length, I trust your opinion. I've not used a sandbox before, I'll have a look for it. Apreciate the kind words. (Gowron 14:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC))

Good morning, I've got a 50 year old hangover, my own fault. I'm going to take your advice and leave the YETI alone for the moment, and possibly think about a complete re-write that could be presented in about 6 months, it’s the research that uses up the time. I/we/they need to get everything together, and come up with what needs to be said and in what order that has none of the current mistakes etc (that will be a miracle). But a lot more verified facts need to get presented, however the more you find the more trouble you seem to run into, but thats the process of closing all the questions down as your come up against them that we live with it seems. I have a hill information (80% I've not read yet), references and original press releases that have never been seen or at least very rarely. Again your take on these matters is much appreciated. (Gowron 10:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

Re

So, I guess this is how you are biased against your enemies? Telling me not to be a troll, even when your own evolutionist buddies do the same. I am an uncivil person and I treat people the way they treat me. I do not regard your comment as fair or friendly (the stuck up way it was written), so I am not your friend. Do not warn me about nonsense issues, and spend your time at rather improving articles. Thank you. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 17:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so Ly4321 is also you, is he? That's interesting. Using sockpuppets to fake extra support for your position is not allowed on Wikipedia. Do you have any more? I have no "buddies" at the page you're talking about, and I'm not responsible for researching the entire site before warning one abusive user. Being "an uncivil person" won't fly here. Edit civilly when you return or you'll face a longer block. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

207.200.116.67 unblocked

On August 9th, 2006, you blocked 207.200.116.67 (talk · contribs) indefinitely because of the Bobby Boulders vandal. However, 207.200.116.67 is an AOL proxy shared by many users. Since we're not supposed to give long blocks to IP addresses, let alone AOL proxies, I've unblocked 207.200.116.67. As far as I can tell, Bobby Boulders has been long gone anyways. --Ixfd64 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear, indefinite, and AOL, yet? In my defense, the "block anons only" feature was new then, or new to me, and I must have been drunk with power at what I thought, too optimistically, would finally make it possible to block vandalising AOL anons effectively. Or perhaps just drunk. It's lost in the mists of history, I'm afraid. Thanks for fixing it. Bishonen | talk 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

Mood meter

Anything I can do to help your mood? --Ideogram 07:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, thanks. My mood meter is pretty silly. It's not really numerical, I simply tend to use the moods with my favorite phrases. Can't resist that ole Rain of Frogs. The positive moods are less funny, so they tend not to get used. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC).
We could fix that. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
They're LESS funny. [/me towers up out of the waves.] Doesn't mean they're not HILARIOUS. Run, little Puppy, the big one's coming! Run for your life! Do not mistake Bishzilla's modesty another time, if you ever see another time! Bishzilla 11:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC).
In the highly unlikely event that I do, I will keep that in mind. Actually, what I meant was we could edit the red moods to be less funny. I personally like Auntie's Advice Column, and its a green mood. I may have a bias for that one tho.
As regards running: in addition to my usual handicap of little short legs, I have recently been attacked by a zombie chicken, I have been chastised for having a sense of humor. Running not really an option right now. (puppy hobbles off in search of more coffee) KillerChihuahua?!? 11:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A plea for help

Would you mind having a read over Palais Strousberg? I've translated it from German and I'd be very grateful for a fresh set of eyes. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: user:172

Well he might like you for some reason, & therefore made an effort to make a positive impression on you. However, he's acted like a dick every time I've interacted with him, throwing f-bombs & speaking condescendingly towards anyone who disagrees with him on any topic, no matter how trivial. The last time I heard his username discussed, there were a number of old-timers like me who disliked him for the same reasons. As a result I've dealt with him as little as humanly possible. I only entered the conversation because I happened to be looking over WP:AN/I at the time & the responses he left there convinced me he hadn't changed. You're welcome to defend him if you think he's salvagable, but I feel writing articles is a far more rewarding activity than taking on a project like 172. -- llywrch 00:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not liking me (ha! bah!), it's what I've seen of interaction with others. See for instance, if you care, the discussion and links at Saravask's RFA, which impressed me; I doubt I would have been half as gracious to Clueless Aggressive Newbie Saravask (now an upstanding admin), under those circumstances, as 172 was. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC).
Hi, thanks for contacting me. He's calmed down a bit, as have I probably (I mistakenly originally thought he was in league with User:Vision Thing and you know what he's been up to). However, now User:JBKramer is making ridiculous edits. I'm sure they're both very nice to their grandmothers and, like other disruptive editors, are perfectly fine when nobody objects to their edits, but they're insisting on things that are no part of wikipedia policy and breaking actual policies. Historically examples prove the influence of anarchist communism, whatever other encyclopedia may or may not have said (more to do with space and the likelihood that the material was covered under anarchism). 172's campaign to make a term, libertarian socialism famously used in 1970 by Chomsky (as well as apparently since Bakunin in other languages) as a neologism is ridiculous. Despite the fact that consensus is on my side, I've still sought to compromise, but have a look at JBKramer's latest edits. I have requested mediation, I've just expanded the list of people involved, because this dispute needs someone to come in and mediate between what I acknowledge are strong opinions. However, I'd expect the same attitude towards anarchism from other editors that we have shown to the anarcho-capitalists - a properly cited, historically correct reference. And the situation vis a vis that minority view is far more extreme. Donnacha 23:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Communism 3RR

Hi Bishonen - I have no problem in answering your question nor in accepting any potential mistake. In the 4 diffs presented as evidence, 172 repeatedly removes some wikilinks, the "anarchist communism" subsection headers and trims/rewords passages in "growth of modern Communism." His reverts took place - original and 4 reverts - between 23:07 pm November 18 and 23:43 pm November 19. In the first reverts, he removes "anarchist communism" entirely but then decides to merge it into the preceeding section. I respect this editor and I've offered (thru email) to revoke the block if he pledges not to engage in multiple reverts, but its his fault for not settling the issue on the talkpage before making "compromise" partial reverts. I quote from WP:3RR:

"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. 'Complex partial reverts' refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention."

If you feel I've made the wrong decision, please lemme know why. I am open (always) to your input. I don't wish to use blocks where a discussed resolution is possible to achieve. Rama's arrow 04:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too tired to think straight, it's about five hours past my bedtime in this timezone. This is the edit I'm talking about. (Please don't tell me about timestamps in some quite different zone than what I'm seeing on my screen, that's all I need for my head to actually explode.) It seems to me that it's a rewrite of Donnacha's piece that's a little shorter, but mainly is better integrated into an article called Communism--a historiographic presentation of the concept of communism for the general reader--as opposed to an article called "Communism and anarchism compared," or such like. Also, 172 surely discussed it amply on the talkpage. But if a "revert" is now defined, for the purpose of the 3RR, as any change of another editor's input, down to a single word or dot--then presumably anybody who edits an article in any way at all four times in 24 hours needs a 24-hour block..? For they're surely always changing somebody's input--the word or dot I'm changing came from somewhere. The more I think about it, the more I have difficulty understanding that definition. It seems random to call regular editing "reverting". The definition at Help:Reverting, which is prominently linked to from WP:AN/3RR, is quite different: "To revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical in content to the page saved at that time."
I conclude that, for "reverting" as defined in the 3RR policy to have any meaning beyond simply editing, continually undoing other editors' work must be very operative words in "A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting." I really can't agree that 172's edits amounted to continually undoing other editors' work. Especially the one I've mentioned, this, doesn't do that --it's a thoughtful edit, and doesn't undo anybody's work IMO. Surely it can't, at the very least, be seen as a link in any sort of chain of continually undoing other editors' work. That's what I think. But I'm done, and going to bed, I'll leave it with confidence to you. Bishonen | talk 05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC).
Your rationale is very illuminative. However, I still disagree - thru the edits he made in the diffs, 172 was inserting his data thru the modification of the existing text. The things he continually changed were removing the "anarchist-communism" section and the wikilink on "ideology." He also sought to reshape the passage in "growth of modern Communism." Now the other editors were insisting that he not make those changes - its not my concern if they were right/wrong in this but that 172 kept insisting on reverting to his version, albeit with modifications to placate those who reverted him before. I followed a strict interpretation of 3RR based on the quote from the policy - what I would have expected 172 to do after 1-2 reversions, is to discuss his proposals for compromise and make the change only after the talkpage discussion settled down. Edit summaries don't do work for the talkpage and 172 should not have engaged in multiple reverts. However, I'm not a "trigger-happy" admin and I respect 172's contributions. If there is a genuine problem over 3RR's correct application here, I don't mind the slightest if the block is revoked. I just hope 172 is more careful from now on. Rama's arrow 13:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Get a reality grip!

You suck, try to be responsible and take youre elected resonability for real, and be objective... --Swedenborg 01:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Who elected me to be reasonable? I'm sorry you're having so much trouble with the policies of Wikipedia, Swedenborg, but the place just isn't intended for the kind of use you've been makiing of it. I won't explain that again, you must have heard it about 15 times. Now just leave quietly, or somebody will come along and block you for personal attacks, you know. Signed, Calt... no! I mean Bishonen! That's it, that's who I am! Bishonen from Tokyo! (Just one question: why Tokyo..?) 01:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
You are truly evil. I like that in a woman.
Come on Calton, I'll see you in Shibuya over a beer tonight All right, but you have to promise not to destroy Tokyo Tower on the way over. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it's the other alternative account, hello there, let's have a family gathering! I promise to be as careful of major structures as teh evilness permits. (/me stuffs the little Calton and the little Bishonen in her pocket and tromps off in search of Japanese beer.) Bishzilla 12:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

Ok, to punctuate it as "You suck," the comment has to be a vocative. So, there is some person called "You suck" (or Yu-Suk?), and then we get "take you are elected." Yu-suk, 1. try to be responsible and 2. take (because) 3. you are elected responsibility (clearly a personification of Responsibility), 4. (try) as if it were real, and, while you take the attempt as if it were a real thing, be like an object. Very aphoristic. Geogre 15:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read it again before turning your full subtlety to the interpretation of it, yu-suk sensei. It's not my elected "responsibility", it's my elected "resonability". That was what I responded to. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
Ah, well, that's obviously a case of polysemy at work. No doubt it was a combination of Wessonality and renaissance and, most particularly, of re-stamping with a masculine gender, as it is re-son-ability -- to take on the abilities of a son again. Deeper and deeper it gets. Geogre 15:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP

Your edit to Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal was quickly reverted by another editor, but I agree with your main point. See the article's talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 15:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I fully expected to be promptly reverted, of course. Davkal's claim on the talk page that I inserted a "false claim" by actually mentioning the one source provided is pretty offensive, but I should have expected that too. I blocked Davkal for a week once (with 100% support from WP:ANI, incidentally) and he hasn't missed a chance to attack me since. I wish I had the temper or the time to edit the articles he has his barbed wire round, but I don't: there are too many more interesting things to do round the site for me to feel like wasting time running to stay in the same place, and being insulted as a bonus. Bishonen | talk 16:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
I support your edit to the article. If it doesn't say what organization said that, it could say that members of that organization said it and that the organization published it. The weasel words saying that some have criticized CSICOP doesn't say much. I agree with you that it is better to say who is doing it. Bubba73 (talk), 16:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Isn't this exciting?

Have you read the main page today for once it is not about a boring old buildings by long dead architects, playwrights who would never have been published had they lived today - or some sort of cardboard person involved with vice, sex and violence type computer games, but actually very interesting. I knew nothing (well almost nothing) of this until I read it today. Restores one's faith in the Americans - yes I know you are American Geogre, and you too BoG and Paul and etc. etc. etc. , but you all are a very superior ones - with Italian blood I expect, and if you lived in Europe and read the press there you would know what I meant. Giano 21:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Giano, read America (The Book). DVD+ R/W 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Might I also suggest you check out one of my new heros, Keith Olbermann. If you can find the speech he gave on Sept. 11th of this year, it is truely breath-taking. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I know more about an American education than I confess too! But the older I become and the more I return (which is frequently) the more I find I belong to New york, or surprisinglu Chicago - now why is that I wonder? Giano 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Lemme guess, Italian Supremacism? DVD+ R/W 21:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Your words, not mine;-) Giano 21:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well "superior ones - with Italian blood" was yours, no words are mine :-P DVD+ R/W 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, right, yes, I read that when it was on FAC, actually. Fun, as you say. As for Chicago, I always assumed your affinity for the place was something to do with your uncle's rather important position in the Teamsters? No? Bishonen | talk 22:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
No! As usual you are quite wrong. I was going to say before you were so rudely insulting, that Michigan Avenue is one of the few places outside of Italia where one feels a degree of "je ne sais quoi". Does Stockholm (is there a second city?) have a downtown area? I don't believe I know it. Chicago always has a special place in my heart, we return there each year for the memorial mass to a dear uncle who died so suddenly one Valentine's day there. Anyway I can't stay here idling away with you, I have decided to raise teletubbies to FA status, there is something there that interests me. Giano 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm delighted to hear you have found your level at last! Bishonen | talk 22:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
It is sad, but true Tinky Winky, Dipsy, Laa-Laa and Po have always amused me. Giano 22:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
A bit of a come-down from Hairy Maclary, but it's a consolation that you don't have much further to sink, I suppose. Bishonen | talk 22:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

Oh dear Hairy what happy days they were, when dear old Fil was here too, and we used to write about "toilet paper holders" and such like, but no I'm thinking of a page on that dear little creature with "a yellow, curly antenna and an orange ball, who is concerned with the welfare of all". Giano 22:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Our New York Wikipedians' meet-up in a couple of weeks will be at an Italian restaurant, to the extent that helps you feel connected. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
May I recommend a social club in Pelham Bay, Bronx? I always felt very safe there. Geogre 04:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Wiki meet-ups?.....Ooooh no no no, my mother always warned me about talking to strange people on the internet - I may well be murdered or worse.... (who knows which editors may be there). I shall be watching my back, I see Tinky-winky is already arownd Giano 07:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, we need to consider the dangers to the Wikipedians as they go through the frightening New York City, especially those who go in costume. I suppose they won't be going to those nice restaurants on 125th St. Geogre 13:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It's the ones wearing the black leather IRC initiation outfits under their cloaks, I worry for. I wonder if BoG is going, I'd hate any harm to come to him, I immagine it will be like that scene in Eyes wide shut (you know the one - they all had cloaks on - well some of them!!) I wonder if the Grand Wizard himself will be there, well they are not likely to tell me the password. Why don't you pop over to NY Geogre, you might enjoy yourself then you can tell us all about it and protect poor BoG too Giano 16:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

</abracadabra> Did someone ask for the Grand Wizard? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Quit the chatter and get to work!

Bishonen, you are wasting your talents on talk pages. There are thousands of articles that could use your copyediting. --Ideogram 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so stop talking, and get back to your fantabulous glorious editing. FREE BISHZILLA! :) WE LOVE YOU BISH! Bo-Lingua (Founder, Bishonen/BishZilla Fanclub) 00:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Ideogram, it's a volunteer project. And I really don't think for a moment that you encouraging Bishonen to get out there and work hard on something is going to accomplish any positive goal. Leave off. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Tough crowd. --Ideogram 18:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the situation would benefit from a bumper sticker? Newyorkbrad 00:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh I haven't gotten enough flak about the ones I made already? feh. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's make Brad do it. :) Bo-Lingua 19:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Good idea - as he brought it up, he should make the bumper sticker. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi Bishonen,

This is Aminz :)

I have a simple question if you don't mind. I am involved in a dispute in which some editors consider Paul Johnson (journalist), a conservative journalist who has a lower-second class degree in Jesuit method at Stonyhurst College at Oxford, to be more reliable than Bernard Lewis & Encyclopedia of Islam for the following reasons:

Johnson's publications are have likely outsold those of Lewis by a wide margin
Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill academic publisher, is a POV teritary source. The article there is written by Claude Cahen

In fact, the quotes from the Encyclopedia of Islam are removed and quotes from Johnson are replaced. I would be thankful if you could comment about it. Thanks very very much. --Aminz 03:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. here are the diffs: Please see [15] and [16]

And this is one of the edits in dispute [17] where Encyclopedia of Islam was deleted in favor of Johnson because Encyclopedia of Islam is a POV teritary source. Thanks --Aminz 03:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul Johnson over Bernard Lewis and Claude Cahen? Amazing. Look, Aminz, I really don't have the time or energy, I'm about to go to bed (it's 4:30 AM here!) and arguing about sources is very much not one of my skills, either. Sorry. Geogre, Bunch, and Newyorkbrad, I strongly suggest that this conflict would benefit from your input. Please click on the three authors, they all have wiki articles. I'm surprised at Jayjg—so much so that I think there must be more to this than meets the eye, and even what does meet it is too much for me at this present moment. Brad..? How about applying some of that judicious arbiter thing to (gulp) Antisemitism? Bishonen | talk 03:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. Would you please let me know if Geogre, Bunch, and Newyorkbradare read this discussion?

P.S. the whole relevant paragraph (from Encyclopedia of Islam) is posted here (to check its context):

It cannot be denied that from the last three or four centuries of the Middle Ages there was a general hardening against dhimmis in Muslim countries, helped materially and morally by the change in numerical proportions. Before proceeding further, however, it must be noticed that this hardening of opinion was contemporary with that which appeared in Christendom against the Jews and against Muslims where there were any, without our being able to say to what extent there was convergence, influence, or reaction. On the other hand it must be emphasized that the populace were more easily excited as a result of the deterioration in the economic climate, and that generally changes in the Muslim attitude had been occasioned more by political than by religious considerations. Hitherto there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism.

Thanks very much again. --Aminz 03:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad (why the bold?) will try to take a look in the next couple of days. But my first reaction is that Johnson and Lewis are both reasonable sources and the editors should be able to use both in the article, perhaps contrasting the differing points of view. I'm not familiar with Cahen. (Maybe this should have been the practical exam for the ArbCom candidates instead of John Reid's hypothetical. :) ) Newyorkbrad 03:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Newyorkbrad, Thanks for your comment. Johnson has only a lower-second class degree in Jesuit method; not in Islamic studies or in Antisemtism studies. Furthermore he only has a lower-second class degree. On the other hand, we have a very notable source on Islam, Encyclopedia of Islam, brill academic publisher, and people like Bernard Lewis, Norman Stillman,... which are all experts. Johnson is a popular conservative journalist. --Aminz 03:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore as it was discussed in the talk page, The publisher of Johnson is New York: HarperCollins Publishers, not a univ press or other ones which particularly publish scholarly books, meaning that it is not peer reviewed --Aminz 04:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Great Fire of London

Hey, just wanted to say congrats on FA status and also wanted to apologize for not keeping a closer eye on the FAC page. To be honest, I had forgotten about it for a few days, and when I did come back to it, I saw to my dismay that it had degenerated it into a contentious argument. At the time, I was still rather new, so I was discouraged and offended to be apparently lumped into a category of "smug" editors (simply because of my oppose vote) who don't understand simple grammar, according to Geogre. Not wanting to be sucked into such an argument, I basically decided just to stay away. In hindsight, I should have followed up more closely (especially as I just now saw your comments directed towards me near the end of the FAC). Anyway, my object was more to do with the missing citations than any prose problems (the long sentences to me seemed confusing, but they certainly weren't "flabby prose", and I think we can agree to disagree civilly). I guess I must have missed the covering note which would explain why they went unsourced, so my vote probably would have changed. Anyway, sorry again for not keeping a closer eye on it, but I was a new editor and I was put off by the contentious atmosphere. Gzkn 03:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So was I. Bishonen | talk 03:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

Swedenborg

Yes, I saw the AN/I notice, but given that the guy is the original self-winding watch, they don't need my help in pushing him over a cliff. Heck, he'll probably do it himself, complete with a running start. And yes, too many metaphors. --Calton | Talk 05:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving down Ganymead's latest post for visibility

Might I also suggest you check out one of my new heros, Keith Olbermann. If you can find the speech he gave on Sept. 11th of this year, it is truely breath-taking. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, got it here, thanks. Great stuff. Geogre, I bet you've seen that? Bishonen | talk 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC).
I had missed that. Thanks, it was amazing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If only we could have a speaker of his calibre and intelligence as President...wow! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh my! Intelligence, eloquence, and balls. I am so glad you posted this here Ganymead, I would ahve missed it else. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
He gets frequent mentions in the Hall of Heroes on Air America, although they suspect him of commercial motives. I.e. he wasn't seen paying dues at the last Sierra Club meeting, I gather. Geogre 01:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Another dead bird for you!

Happy Thanksgiving!

No, I don't much care if you celebrate the American Thanksgiving - how could I pass up a chance to put another dead bird on your page? There was an image on Flickr I liked better, but it was copyrighted. I provide the link for your viewing enjoyment: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoswick2/303708777/ KillerChihuahua?!? 13:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Appeal_of_Prof02

Please take notice that a request for arbitration concerning you has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Appeal_of_Prof02. Fred Bauder 14:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Still, this is good news. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Re-experiencing the sneering and meanness on the FAC has about the same ugh factor as Prof02, AFAIC. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
Don't let the buggers get you down. It is quite lovely and deserves wider recognition. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, well, naturally it's lovely now, after the light copyedits! [18] Bishonen | talk 21:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
Do not underestimate the power of the light copyedit! A judicious sprinkling of magic commas and &nbsp;es and [[ and ]] and other fairy dust over an article makes everything seem much better. The ordure thrown during a celebratory day on the Main Page will demand the application an entirely different type of wand altogether. Anyway, I have procrastinated enough today. Back to work :( -- ALoan (Talk) 00:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see this dispute ended up at ArbCom. I was surprised that you didn't include the AfD link in your statement: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erich_Heller. PS. In the Great Fire of London article, the style of referring to the sources by name in the article can be confusing: "Porter gives the figure as eight, and Tinniswood as "in single figures" [...] Hanson takes issue..." - initially I thought this was referring to contemporary people at the time called Porter, Tinniswood and Hanson. I know you earlier explain who they are, and give the dates of their books, but still, this is one reason why I prefer prefacing remarks like this with "20th century scholars..." or "in XYZ book (2003), Pearson says...", if you see what I mean? Anyway, just a thought. Carcharoth 00:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes very good sense. I guess I just automatically did it the way I'm used to, the academic way. And also probably I felt so infinitely familiar with those names after living with them for months that I couldn't imagine anybody not knowing Tinniswood... pretty stupid, but what can you do. Anyway, why don't you just change it? I'd rather not edit that article any more, it's a sore spot for me. It got very frustrating to be called "territorial" and "trolling" or "WP:OWNing" if I made any change to other people's edits, and also get blamed for every word written by other people. Pretty much a losing game. :-( I took that sucker off my watchlist while it was still on FAC, and the IPs are welcome to improve it freely when it's on the Main Page as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, why do you think the AfD is important? I thought of including it, but I reckoned the more pages I link to, the more off-putting and heavy going it'll look. Don't you think the user talk page basically says it all..? Bishonen | talk 01:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC).
I'll try and look in on the GFoL article if I get time, but probably won't. Well, not until I see it on the front page, anyway! :-) As for the AfD link, that was me wanting to be completist. I think it does demonstrate some important points about Prof02's attitudes and also some possible remedies were suggested there. Carcharoth 23:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom? ArbCom? What the hell? Let's see what the "remedies" could have been.... Unblocking? Yeah, that might be one. Posting to AN/I? That might have been one, too. An arbitrator filing arbitration, without recusal, on the basis of a single action is bizarre, if that single action was a routine block/unblock situation. Is there evidence of a wheel war? Is there evidence of failure to listen? Is anyone certifying this? There are about a dozen places to go below ArbCom, and a dozen ways of preventing recurrence without the tedium and bitterness of arbitration, so it's staggering that such would be brought. Geogre 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom procedures state that if a user is blocked, he or she can initiate a case by e-mailing a member of the committee and asking that it be posted. I would like to think that Fred Bauder was simply cut-and-pasting the e-mailed-in case pursuant to procedure without in any way endorsing it. I guess we shall see. Newyorkbrad 01:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If the words are not his, if this is a c&p, I would hope that he would take the pains to make that clear. Given the lack of attempts at solving the problem, I would hope there is no certification, as well. The person in question is more abuser than user of Wikipedia. I may or may not have agreed with the block & lock, but it falls far, far below the threshhold of arbitration, in my view, and I hope like heck that this isn't yet another one of those wild ride cases where the person lodging it becomes the subject. If it does, Prof02 looks more and more and more like a Wikipedia goiter: he doesn't do anything, but he keeps occupying space. Geogre 04:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It says "statement by Prof02" and not "statement by Fred Bauder," and Fred hasn't listed himself as a party, so that's the inference I draw. Newyorkbrad 04:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I've read it now, and it's unambiguous. I was hasty. Even though I entered a view, I really think the best thing is for it to be uncertified and fall off. I agree with one thing about all this, though: if Prof02 learns that he doesn't get to own the article, he will probably wander away from Wikipedia, as he hasn't shown any interest in the site in general. Geogre 04:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Balloons diminished

Tiny toy balloon stranded on the ground in some Swedish backyard in winter. Some bugs nearby wonder what it is.

User:EncMstr has been tinyfying your crashed balloon, as well as a number of other balloon-related articles (why balloons?), based on a guideline I have never seen referred to before, saying that image size should never be specified (added to the guideline by Tyrenius here). Not very appropriate, I think, when it concerns an image like the one of the crashed Eagle.

I reverted your Andrée expedition article, because the image size change was so obviously against common sense there; one might as well remove the images entirely, as the small size makes most of them virtually useless as illustrations. I have not reverted all the other articles, as the change may possibly be appropriate somewhere else. Uppland 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

BALOONS! El_C 09:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
BALOONS! El_C 09:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
BALOONS shadow! El_C 09:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
topical BALOONS! El_C 09:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
guy in the centre wants... BALOONS! El_C 09:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
fractal of BALOONS! El_C 09:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
deport BALOONS! El_C 09:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
File:Great pershing balloon derby.jpg
BALOONS! El_C 09:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
no cat BALOONS! El_C 09:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)



Bubble wrap, seemingly pre-popped

...Speaking of which, I just discovered balloon fetishism while stalking looking at Bunchofgrapes's contributions (staunch defense of the cheese article, as always). Apparently, balloon fetishism comes in different varieties, one of which is popping balloons. I wonder if there is any relation between that and a predisposition to like popping bubble wrap, which the Wikipedia article on the topic innocently and without sources describes as "stress relief". Hmm, I wonder if the scientific literature has anything on bubble wrap?Uppland 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Agitated

I have just read this heap of smouldering festering rubbish here [19] what is it all about - it is a disgrace - I have just followed all the links - it is poppycock (polite word for bolox). Why are you referred to as "defendants" and "the accused." What is this all about? - why is Charles Matthews sounding like Pontius Pilate with a cracked wash basin? Why is nobody jumping up and down? It is a disgrace "accused"...."defendants" why is Fred Bauder allowing this terminology, enough people told me it was not a court of law, seems to be one law for one and another for another - if you ask me. Giano 12:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just been double checking, it is worse than I thought - if Charles Matthews had a problem with the way you answered his hopes [20], as it now seems he has - descibing your efforts as "maneouvres", he's had since mid-September to question you - so why hasn't he? That's what I want to know - he and Fred ought to get on their Arbcom mailing list or whatever they call it - and have a discussion about WTF is going on, before allowing you to be described as "accused" and "defendent" in public - God I'm mad on your behalf. If they want to talk legal - you need a lawyer, and a good one, because I for one have not forgotten or forgiven the Eternal Equinox proposals!, let alone the Giano fiasco Giano 13:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: see here (subsequently refactored) regarding the word "defendants" as well as my view of the case. Hopefully there shouldn't be too much to worry about this time (although I am troubled by today's developments in the Konstable case). Newyorkbrad 22:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My reading of the case is that it was brought because Prof02 was blocked and his user page was protected. It looks like Fred probably brought the case because Prof02 couldn't plead his case on his user page - see the bit under "methods attempted to resolve dispute" (or something). That might be the little thing that those blocking Prof02 have to justify. But I may have this all wrong, so take this with a pinch of salt. Carcharoth 23:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. Just saw the balloons above! I recently discovered the S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 page - fascinating! Carcharoth 23:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I just like to say to Andy Millman. Right? I may be boring, but at least I didn't lose my virginity when I was 28, to a woman that looks like Ronnie fuckin' Corbett. Prick! El_C 00:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Who are you talking to here? PS. prick is a disambiguation page. Do you mean Prick (album)? Carcharoth 01:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
‽‽‽‽BALOONS!‽‽‽‽ Post Script: the words were written down for me in a script. :) i.e. I was not the one who linked the prick. El_C 05:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't even know insects had testes! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Watch yourself BoG - I am closer to you than you think! Giano 05:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you finally made it up to Idaho, then, Giano? Wonderful! By a great coincidence, Momofgrapes and I just went out to dinner at this fantastic Piedmontese (Piedmontian?) restaurant. You should have joined us. But I suppose your southern Italian spirit, veins flowing tomato-red and all, rebels against all that white-coloured food. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"del Piemonte" actually, and its Portland..hohohoho.Giano 05:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You can't possibly be in Portland. I would feel the disturbance in the force, you know, as if a million voices cried out and then were silenced. Well, if you really are, and still are tomorrow, email me if you're brave enough to meet my Mom ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see what you're upset with, Giano. Charles Matthews says that all the page moves, etc., were maneuvers. He was trying to say that Prof02's complaint didn't apply to him. It doesn't apply to Bishonen, either, though. There are two parts to Prof02's statement. One is an AN issue, and one is paranoiac. He says he wants to be unblocked. Ok, that's a normal thing and doesn't involve ArbCom. Then he says that he wants "action" to be taken against everyone who has touched or commented upon his misuse of server space. That's an absurd charge, and Charles Matthews would have done well, from my armchair position, to have just said that Prof02 is demanding that we not be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Instead, he said that he had been uninvolved in the thing that made Prof02 unhappy. <shrug> I didn't read into that anything to do with Bishonen at all. Geogre 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

MONGO like IKEA

Thank you![21]. Indeed, the paperwork was spilling out of my old grey monstrosity!--MONGO 05:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I won't be hurt if you reinstate the classic grey, I know many people prefer it. (I just don't know why...) Bishonen | talk 15:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC).
BALLLLOOOON!
Hit The Gas!

Opinions welcome

See Susanna Centlivre and its history, before and after my extreme rollback. See the talk page to the article. Was I right or OWNing? Geogre 13:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean "or"? It's "and", Geogre. Bishonen | talk 15:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

I rolled back to that person's edits! I don't mind additions, but look at what she wanted! Weigh in, please, as now I'm on the verge of being a misogynist for not talking about the unfairness of mean old Pope for daring to slap back at a girl. Geogre 16:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You rotten curmudgeon, you. Anyway, this seems to have sprung new-formed from Zeus' brow. I hope it is not a copyvio? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's it, indeed. These people have never seen a curmudgeon before? They don't have any mean faculty members stalking around the halls and frightening the young and eager students? Sheesh. Oooooh, nooooo, I'm the first person to make them do some thinking, and I'm so vicious! Sheesh. I know not Elizabeth Giffith, nor any secondaries on her, so I'm not going to be able to do the copyvio check, except, of course, the usual (electronic) way. If there is a copyvio that blatant, then the lot need to be slapped. Geogre 21:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Forced image size

One user keeps reverting my changes, arguing that Personally, I think that the policy is correct. Forcing image sizes leads to inconsistency of style across multiple articles... See the pertinent discussion here. El_C 17:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


Happy Thanksgiving (much belated).

Greetings from the aeroporto, (one hop on, one to go) where I sit patiently and prolonlgdley (segregated fortunately) from those who have over indulged. (I suspect the over indulgence of many did not start this week - please let half of them not be sitting next to me on the flight). On behalf of all of the nonAmerican editors I have carried out some research on thanksgiving (mostly wiki based admittedly). It seems like a good time is nominally had by all, but I ask you - how good by European standards is that time, this image here seems to sum it up Image:TraditionalThanksgiving.jpg, and that begs two questions, firstly an aesthetic one - why are they eating off a bedspread, is there a little reported tradition here, and secondly more close to my heart - where are the wine glasses. Now, a comment from me (at an in USA aeroporto) I do object to being referred to as an alien I have not flown in from outer space, I am in fact a human being - (there is no need to comment "Lar"). Anyhow I may be off-line for some time, my satellite thingy is attracting unwelcome attention, and a very large lady keeps smiling at me!, in an earlier queue she heard I had arrived via Frankfurt, and said she had always wanted to try a real frankfurter - words fail me - I explained I was from Sicily and clearly not her man - but she had an unconvinced look, please don't let her be nest to me on the flight. I should have accepted BoG's kind invitation and stayed where I was. I will attempt to make contact in the near future climate and natives permitting. Giano 19:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Giano..! Petite I may possibly not be, but very large is surely an exaggeration. How could you betray the empathy we shared in the aeroporto—nay, the poetry of eyes meeting ! Bishonen | talk 04:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC).
I don't think people have a particularly good time. (New blog post on why.) They have a good time on balance, but in that harrowing of hell sort of way. It's like taking a giant purgative. At the same time, I had 18 hr driving in traffic, running fevers, possibly nursing a cancer (and possibly not), and with a bad head cold. I come home to as many papers to grade as I had when I left, and even less energy to do anything about them. Geogre 19:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Great blog, Geogre! Bishonen | talk 04:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC).
Blog? Where blog? Newyorkbrad 19:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, it's not very funny. I think a search for "The Geogre" on Google turns it up, but I tend to forget the address myself. It's just an essay depository, but today's was "Why We Fight (at Thanksgiving)." No, apparently not. It's at, umm, litgeek-rambles.blogspot.com for whatever it's worth. Geogre 22:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC) (proving my allegation that I am boring)
I was wondering the same thing, Brad. BTW, Giano, my family Thanksgiving includes wine, liquor, beer, well, alcohol in general. In fact, my turkey was accompanied by a White Russian this year. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 22:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the "bedspread" on the table is a quilt being used as a table-cloth. I think there is a tradition in some places in the USA (and maybe other places as well) of a quilt being something handed down in the family and added to over the years (add on a few squares each generation, or something). Carcharoth 00:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for once again defending the honor of my talkpage. This gentleman was upset because I pointed out that an ongoing arbitration page can't be deleted at MfD. As much as we might wish sometimes.... :) Newyorkbrad 19:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Let me know if there is any desire for a last-minute copyedit of any portion of Great Fire. I'm not going to play with it unless there's a section that could use a little attention.
Up to you entirely. If you've been following this page, you may have noticed that I left that article on the steps of the orphanage and hurried off into the snowstorm some time back. I mean, I abjured the territorialism I'd been so justly charged with. It's not on my watchlist, so I don't know what attention it may or may not require. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Wolfenstein

No probs. I read a lot, so it's pretty easy for me to recognize the author of a work without necessarily seeing that person's actual name. Keep up the good work. --AaronS 15:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Opus Dei RFC

Bishonen (great name, incidnentally)-- I noticed that you were closely involved in the FAC on the Opus Dei article way back in September of 2005. There had been a lot of trouble getting that article worked out due to the existence of a large number of single purpose accounts that show up to promote OD here on wikipedia. (In the FAC, for example, no less than 3 different brand new accounts showed to vote in that discussion, for example).

Anyway, puppetry notwithstanding, I've recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. I think the new page is better, but the aforementioned single-purpose accounts have been reverting it pretty consistently. Could you look over the page and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvement and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 15:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Wow... you get a lot of comments! So many sections added since my last comment to you. I'm sure it's probably because you're trusted and valued in the community, but I think your username helps. lol.
Anyway, thanks for helping out on the OD page. If you see any other non-controversial ways the page can be improved, by all means, go for it, you're doing great so far.
On a side note, I'm assuming by your actions that you approve of the recent rewrite? If so-- could you explicitly state that approval at the RFC section? Reason being-- we still have a number of OD members threating to revert the whole thing back to the old version and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one more good edit war flare up over it. And when that happens, it would be helpful if the admins could quickly and easily go to the RFC and see a list of 15 people all in support of the rewrite.
Thanks again for lending a hand! --Alecmconroy 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, the thing is, every time I've gone to look, I've gotten sidetracked into something else, like the intro this time. You mean read the old version and then read the new version...? I'll try, but it is a bit of an undertaking. I tend to not be focused enough, these past few days, to do something like that. Yeah...I get comments... I also get my friends getting comfortable chatting to each other here, over my head. If I were to go on a wikibreak, I sometimes wonder how long it would take the regulars of this salon to even notice—they do very nicely without the hostess! Bishonen | talk 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC).
I know what you mean. I'm convinced hypertext gives us all attention deficit disorder-- SOOO MANY clickable options. Add in a little coffee, a tv in the background, and I can go days without getting anything substantive done! And yes, I notice the improved intro had been improved. I have already taken the liberty of improving the improvememt of the improved version. --Alecmconroy 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In a recent edit, a user transformed the bullet pointed criticism to a prose form. I reverted that part of that of change, but do you think I was right to do so? On the one hand, the bullet points all the article to be a little more NPOV-- I wanted to keep the criticism very brief, and the bullet points allowed us to retain that extreme brevity but still be NPOVed balanced against a rebuttal section that was 3-4 times as long. On the other hand, we don't use bullet points elsewhere in the article, so perhaps we shouldn't here either, but should just create a longer prose form of the criticism. What do you think?

Lostcaesar has worked on a replacement controversy section here. As of this moment, it's basically just the sentences with the bullet points taken out. I think it sounds a little schiziophreni (though he may have fixed that). Do you think bullet points are acceptable, or should we replace them with a longer prose section? --Alecmconroy 16:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You know....

New blog entry...about why people in the US are having a war on the war on Christmas.

I really could use some eyes/voices at talk:Susanna Centlivre, as it's two against one. (It's a student and her advisor vs. little old me.) Geogre 19:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it seems now it was 4:1 or perhaps 5:1. No, I do not feel like Gulliver. I feel like the sorrel grey. Geogre 04:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Howdy! (one picks up the language so quickly)

Breathe a sigh of relief everyone I'm home! Normal service is resumed. So to catch up on the mail:

Thanks Carcharoth for answering my question, well actually you haven't as to why Americans dine off their bedspreads on Thanksgiving Image:TraditionalThanksgiving.jpg. Mrs G would be very cross, if I put her best "Toile de Joy" on the dining room table and then let the kids spill sauce all over it - Never mind - I'm sure it's a very nice custom, and it must be very comforting to smell that lovely meal when tucked up in bed. God! they think we are quaint

Now Bishonen, I see you seem likely to be absolved of assault on a newby. Even I 've never been charged with that one ( I think - could you check that Lar? - thank you) you must be a very bad woman indeed - I always thought it was such a boring page I'm surprised any one ever read it anyway.

Finally I see we are in for some fireworks tomorrow, well I'm sorry to say I don't think it is quite ready for the main page yet, I am about the only person who has not yet stamped my individuality on it - where I ask is the sun-kissed prose? I'll go and have a fiddle with it in a minute. Congratulation though, very clever! - is it a true story?

Oh yes. here is something I made when I was feeling bored this morning - clever isn't it - you may want to hand them out? I don't suppose you know how I could incorporate it into my signature? I love the cut and thrust of politics, just like being back in the old homeland at election time!!!

This user does not support
IRC Fairies for ArbCom.

Take care! Giano 21:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Great to see the fire of london on the main page - I passed the monument this weekend whilst trying to find my way accros london - it's pitifully lost (like I was), surrounded by some really bad office buildings, hard to imagine it used to have the best views of london. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I must try and look for that monument sometime as well. I have a vague memory of being shown it on a school trip, but I doubt I'd be able to find it now. Carcharoth 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, you can't easily miss it if you come out of the main entrance of Monument tube station. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
D'OH!! Hey, I see you can climb to the top of it! Maybe Wikipedia would like a picture of the view from the top? :-) Carcharoth 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I found out this week the real reason why Bobwhite Quail are no longer heard on summer evenings down here in the south is not overhunting by rednecks and vice presidents of the United States, but, instead, because of fire ants. Quail are ground nest birds, and the fire ants are killing them out, so they're almost never found in the wild anymore. Congratulations on getting the fire done, and well done, despite the fire ants. (And thanks a ton for looking in on my own creepy crawlies.) Geogre 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just coming to post my own congratulations and saw that somebody already beat me to it. Well, congratulations anyway. --*Kat* 05:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kat. :-) ALoan, if I'd had the slightest idea where anything is in London, where would the challenge have been? Believe me, I could miss it. Bishonen | talk 06:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

Now I get it.

Ohhhhhhhhhhh yeah. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh? Is/was there a problem? Well, besides the impression I was under that I'd posted a "request for clarification from the Committee". It seems to be generating a non-Committee chat thread instead. Bishonen | talk 06:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
I added a new threaded comment as per your request (probably!). El_C 09:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
(To clarify -- I had forgotten all about Giano's name change, and had been mystified until your request for clarification by the suggestion that he was somehow disfranchised in the ArbCom elections.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well

I'm sorry that you regard my comment as unseemly, but I've come to regard Giano's behavior in much the same fashion. I wish only to know if you regard his entire statement there as appropriate given the context. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He's expressing bitterness. And you're telling him he obviously doesn't mean it, because if he did he would change his username? You think he's joking or something? Trolling? And that it's for you to tell him to change the account name he's been contributing under? "Oh, just create some reincarnation or sock or something"? That's a very contemptuous proposal. I find it shocking. In bad taste. Unseemly. Bishonen | talk 12:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
No, I'm telling him that he's being immoderate in his comments. Allow me to explain why. Let me preface this by noting that I admire his contributions to the article space.
I have no doubt that he's very bitter, but that does not give him the right to remind us of that in every public forum. Every time he comments on an admin action he finds it necessary to remind us that he dislikes admins in general. He'll probably work in a snide remark about IRC too (like that lovely homophobic box further up the page). Now, Carnildo blocked him almost a year ago. Apparently the slur wasn't severe enough to make him leave altogether. No, it wasn't too severe a burden until that nasty affair with Tony Sidaway and the arbitration case, a case in which Giano faced no sanction or reprimand (quite a feat these days). He scrambled his password and killed access to the email account, which isn't all that uncommon when one wants to leave--except that he came back. We deal with cases like this all the time. Someone recently got adminship under a new account name, and he wasn't the first. Now, the nastiness in the block log isn't his fault--neither is the nastiness in mine, not that anyone ever cared to look. However, the actions that he took to lose access to his account were his, and his alone. That it would even be on the table for Brion to personally address this mess is incredible--I can think of no other case in which so many people have bent over backwards to help someone. Even more incredible, Giano's two main opponents in that case, Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin, have withdrawn from Wikipedia.
I don't think that it's too much to ask, on the balance of things, that Giano start treating other people with respect and that he realize how well he's been treated, when it's all said and done. Every time I see him on the noticeboard or elsewhere, making snide remarks about people who've done him to wrong and re-opening old wounds, I ask why his behavior couldn't be on the level of his article contributions. Civility isn't just being on the welcoming committee or couching one's words in soft language, it's demonstrating that you have respect for other contributors on this project and value their input.
One final matter. I don't appreciate having words put in my mouth. I never called him a sockpuppet or any such thing--I simply observed that if he wanted to avoid the "taint" in Giano's block log, he shouldn't have called his new account "Giano II." This seems to me a commonsense observation and frankly I don't understand the reaction it provoked. Mackensen (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that Thatcher131 removed the thread. I'm sorry that bad feeling still exist between some of the Best and Brightest Wikipedians... Let me know it I can be helpful in any way. Take Care, FloNight 13:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't comment on Mackensen's comments, other than to say my name is mine, and I quite like it. I do not like being accused of hate speech. I resent those that think it is nothing. Finally, ("like that lovely homophobic box further up the page") calling someone a "fairy" means someone is considered "lightweight". Do you want me to spell out the meaning of "lightweight" or do you think you can successfully work that one out all by yourself? Giano 13:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't get why anyone should care whether Giano II is feeling bitter. The comment on RFAR was jocular, in my view, and this allegation that it was opening old wounds is a thing I can't understand. Giano didn't talk about how much he dislikes admins (and I don't know where he's done that in general...some of his best friends are admins, etc.). I've never read anything but disliking administrators who get egomaniacal, and a lot of us have written against those folks. Giano has requested the clearing of the block log since the day of the block, and for very good reasons. It's easily done, but, apparently, there are so many people who have put their pride on the line that there is opposition to removing a comment that everyone (except Carnildo) has said was a terrible mistake and factually incorrect. People are acting on personalities and saying that they're doing so because Giano is acting on personalities. We'll never get anywhere that way. Also, the "homophobic" is yet another insult, and a very serious one. If Giano were as bitter as he's accused of being, he could get pretty ticked off by being accused of homophobia here. Geogre 13:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the length of fairy (disambiguation), it is rather extreme to assume or assert that "IRC Fairy" it is homophobic. I will never look at a fairy cake the same way again. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Let us not spoil Bishonen's lovely day, with all this talk of "little people", both RL and Wiki-friends know I am not homophobic. I have to say that the alternate meaning for fairy had not crossed my mind until it crossed Mackensen's. Is a "fairy cake" the same as an "angel cake"? - all light weight confections of little nutritional value Giano 14:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Where I come from fairy, in that context, means something very specific. I fail to see how I was to assume it meant cake, or some such, especially given Giano's previous unkind remarks about IRC. I find this all very mysterious. I don't think I'm going to profit much by continuing here in this discussion, although I do appreciate that so many of you took time out of your day to tell me that I was wrong, that my concerns was misplaced, and that on the whole I was being unreasonable. Some of you were even kind enough to do so without being flippant. I thank you for that. I won't waste my time or yours trying to make you see something that you've decided doesn't exist. Good day. Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I am sure you understand "fairy" as being homophobic, at least in that specific context (I won't even bother with the gay blade or the gay cavalier) but I am also sure that Giano did not have the slightest intention of being homophobic. I am sure he was being insulting in other ways about lightweight IRC weenies, but not homophobic. Sometimes a fairy is just a fairy. (The cakes are light and sweet, you see.) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No it's not its because they are made of sponge and have little sponge wings between the pink icing sugar - where were you on your kid's 2nd and 3rd bithday parties? - hiding on the golf course I suppose. Giano 14:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be a butterfly cake. Also compare angel cake, which is a type of layer cake. Now I am feeling hungry. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah hah! We don't call them that around here, but cupcakes are indeed light and sweet. I appreciate the clarification. Mackensen (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with ALoan. If I were to call someone an IRC fairy, I would mean that the person is a lightweight, that the person is an airy nothing, not that the person is homosexual. Given the percentage of Wikipedians who are homosexual and the fact that no one can know and fewer than none should care whether the person at the other keyboard has a tab with beefcake or cheesecake open, making a gay bashing remark on Wikipedia would be really weird. Geogre 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Beefcake I understand, but cheesecake? Is there some subtle heterophobic humour that I do not follow? (Nudge nudge; say no more.) I could also mention twinkies in this connection.
I agree with the sentiment, but tell that to User:Francs2000. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"Cheesecake" for "revealing photos of women" predates "beefcake" (which isn't a cake of any sort at all), and I think it comes from the 1940's, when "cheesecake photos" were used as pin-ups for WW2 servicemen. I'm not sure where the actual cheese cake went. Geogre 16:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Geogre - do you have reference for this? I'm not actually saying I think you have made it up, in so many words, but a source would be nice. I notice Twinkie does not cite its sources, or should I say "sauces" (OK, don't all die laughing at once) - who on earth would by a cake called a Twinkie? At least that's one export you Americans spared us - I actually thought (à la Mackensen) Twinky was something to with gay culture, good think I never asked any of my gay friends if they were Twinkies - I must be thinking of something else entirely, I think I'm getting too old for all this, I shall continue to call a spade a spade and have done with it, my children keep texting me in some reverse/abbreviated/obscure language, so that I have to phone them to see what they want. Old age is not any fun. Giano 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
From the OED, 2. Also cheesecake. slang (orig. U.S.). Display of the female form, esp. in photographs, advertisements, etc., in the interest of sex-appeal; female sexual attractiveness. Also attrib. (Cf. beefcake.) 1934 Time 17 Sept. 30/2 Tabloid and Heartsmen go after ‘cheesecake’leg-pictures of sporty females. 1942 Time 24 Aug. 4/1 The supreme Empress of Cheesecake, the very Marlene Dietrich,..was fittingly crowned by the Treasury as the champion bond seller. (Beefcake US slang orig. 1949 in Amer. Speech (1954) XXIX. 282 Alan Ladd has a beefabout ‘*beefcake’, the new Hollywood trend toward exposing the male chest.) Thatcher131 17:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
See the fourth paragraph of pin-up girl. Newyorkbrad 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, you asked for a reference and I brought you a reference, within the pages of this selfsame encyclopedia, as opposed to my rivals who were forced to resort to external, and therefore inferior, sources of information. Asking someone to do something and then scolding him when he does it is considered entrapment in these parts. I won't comment on your use of the term "beavering", either. Newyorkbrad 02:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Most beautiful nation on earth? Those dowdy pisanas calling their menfolk home with a rolling-pin weapon? The most beautiful actress in history was Dutch, but I'll take Lana Turner and Ava Gardner (who was also extremely intelligent and a southerner). This is not even to approach Ingrid Bergman and other Swedes. As for cheesecake, what I didn't want to say was that it was a reference to the creamy texture of the woman's thigh, but the OED made that clear enough without my being rude. Geogre 18:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Southern boy, you ever bin to Italy - have you even clicked on May West? Giano 18:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't click on it, as I figured it was the ever-popular spelling redirect to Mae West. As for Twinkies, I haven't the vaguest idea why that has become a popular term in gay culture, unless gay culture is easily amused. (No, never been to Italy, but I did go to the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge once.) Geogre 18:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The slang term is twink (gay slang). The connection, or not, with twinkie seems tenuous. Carcharoth 02:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh that's Ingrid Bergman, all my life people have been saying how beautiful Ingmar Bergman was and I could never see it. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ingrid will not depress you. Geogre 18:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes Geogre, and don't try to curry favour by bringing the Swedes into this, because Bishonen agrees with me, besides which I suggest you sheck out your facts Signora Rossellini like most Swedes could not resist the animal magnetism of an Italian! Giano
OMG, turn my back once and a baked goods and creamy females party breaks out on my page. Yes, Giacomo, we have discussed that, haven't we, as unlikely as it sounds... hmm... at some aeroporto, presumably. Ingmar Bergman may be getting a little past it, Mcginnly, but you should have seen him when I were a slip of a girl. Bishonen | talk 18:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
Sorry, but I think we need to lay off the carb-laden baked goods and return to the beefcake, please! How about some Cary Grant or James Dean or maybe even Jimmy Dean. Well, of course one twinkie isn't too bad. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Immodest Main Page remark

Rotating Mumzilla, scariest of the Jurassics.

Not to boast or anything, ahem, but run while you can, teh Zillas are coming to put the whole kaboodle in their pockets. The revered Mumzilla wrote the front page article of the day on sv.wiki. :-D Bishonen | talk 14:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

And we all hope it doesn't go missing and that it suffers fewer mechanical troubles than its subject. :-) Geogre 15:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


RSVP

Giano 19:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Me? Honestly, boys. Bishonen | talk 19:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
I have no idea what you are talking about. Giano 19:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ipse dixit

Aristotle, on M.A. students:

Since a young man "is apt to be swayed by his passions, he will derive no benefit from a study whose aim is practical and not speculative. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or in character, for the young man's disqualification is not a matter of time, but due to the fact that feeling or passion rules his life and directs all his desires." -- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics i.

That's how I feel, anyway. Geogre 15:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


The black pig under the linden trees (short rant)

I finally got around to posting a first version of the article on Zum schwarzen Ferkel (I noticed somebody else editing Dagny Juel and posting an article on Adolf Paul, and I obviously couldn't let anyone beat me to writing an article I had, after all, been planning to write for a while...), and three minutes later some new page patroler comes slapping a {{notability}} tag on it. (I mean, I have on occasion tagged articles myself, but this one clearly establishes the notability of the place). I'm just wondering how long time it will take before somebody will put a {{db-group}} tag on the page. Sigh. Upp◦land 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why take the risk of dialogue on the talk page, when you can slap a tag and run along? My favorite is "cleanup" because someone couldn't understand a sentence that had a subordinate clause in it. Geogre 23:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
What a fantastic article, Uppland! Since Strindberg frequented the place, may I put a WikiProject Theatre tag on it? *big grin* And Dagny Juel is equally interesting! God, I love the marvelous things to be found here! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks and sure you can (although I'm sure it will be joined by another dozen vaguely related project tags soon, as that is what seems to be happening on all article talkpages). There is still some more work to be done here. I need to put in footnotes, and there are more names to be added. There is a nice image of the place (the one shown here) that seems to come from Adolf Paul's book, but I am uncertain about the copyright. It was, as far as I can understand, first published in 1914, but I don't know who made it. If it was Paul himself, he lived too long (until 1943) for it to have lost protection yet, unless there is some "published-before-19XX" clause that can be used. There are also paintings and drawings by Munch, but they are also still under copyright (another sigh), as he died only in 1944. Upp◦land 06:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fruit Bowl

Have some bread and cheese with that!

And I mean fruit in a totally literal way. Will you be my friend? El_C 12:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Awwww! Will I be your friend? I'll go to Niagara falls with you, Elsie! Have some bread and cheese with that! Bishonen | talk 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

User Page Targeted for Deletion

Bish, please note the following: I've nominated your user subpage User:WBardwin/Chapter for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Once upon a time.... —Doug Bell talk 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC I assert that user pages, under Wikipedia guidelines, are private property and, if they violate no rules or standards, should not be deleted or disturbed by others. I would appreciate your opinion in my disagreement with this administrator. Thanks. WBardwin 06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh

Previously when we talked, the issue at hand was my commentary about Wikipedia and specifically mentioning someone by name. The likes of what I have currently posted was not mentioned. I am not aware of rules that I have broken by what I posted, but as I am being warned it now makes things quite clear. I would like to know the specific rules on the issue so I can avoid such things in the future. Alyeska 05:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, its not very pleasant being threatened over things I was not aware of. Generally speaking its better to warn of rules violations. Stating you would lock my user page is in itself a direct threat. What I did hurt no one and it should be obvious that it wasn't done with the intent of breaking any rules. So I would appreciate a less hostile attitude since I wasn't trying to be hostile with you. Thats also why I am asking for a link to the rules your talking about. I keep getting these warnings but I don't recall ever being given a rules link and its hard to follow rules when you don't know them. Alyeska 06:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No, generally speaking it's better not to troll and not to waste my time. Can you remember the times before you became a rulebot, Ayeda? Try to recollect that mindset and act according to it on wiki, and you can't go far wrong. There is no possibility for Wikipedia policy to cover in advance all the dumb or offensive things users can think of doing, such as posting different kinds of offensive content on their userpage. The specific policy on that is Wikipedia:Userpage: "libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". The general guidelines whose spirit you're supposed to follow are Wikipedia:Common sense and Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. Please read them in good faith. Bishonen | talk 08:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
Newsflash: the rules apply to you too. No Personal Attacks! |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= Talk to me :D 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, trollfest on my page, cute. Run along, dears, or would you like a formal warning first? Bishonen | talk 09:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
Wow, more personal attacks. How about you lead by example instead? |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= Talk to me :D 09:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. You see that door at the back? Just hold my hand and I'll lead you there. Here we are. Out you go. Mind the trashcans. [Clatter]. And this is a formal warning, since you insist: Stop hanging round my page trying to sniff out personal attacks. Just leave before you get in trouble. See this recent portrait? I'm actually nothing like as kindly as I look in it. Bishonen | talk 09:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, I am not trying to troll nor waste your time. You posted a warning to me and I didn't know the rules on the issue hence my request. You should have noticed that I immediately removed the material you commented on as well as something else you did not. I did that in good faith to follow the rules. I admit to being irritated over this, but I am trying here and I came to you in good faith to find out just what I did wrong. Your cited rules mostly talk about libeling people, not organizations. Ubisoft is an organization. However, I do notice the second aspect of the quote from Jimbo, and I agree that going for an entire paragraph on the subject was pushing things a little far. So in the end I now see what you were warning me about, acknowledge, and agree. Thank you. Alyeska 17:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sno, knock it off. I told you last night not to do something like this. This was between Bishonen and myself and I find the situation to have ended properly. If you had bothered to do a little digging, you might have noticed Bishonen is someone we can agree with. Bishonen is a supporter of userspace. So stop making enemies of people that should be friends. Alyeska 17:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Aly and Bishonen. Sometimes I get too hotheaded for my own good. I apologize.
Maybe it's time for me to find some vandals to go Godzilla on instead of each other. :) |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= Talk to me :D 19:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping me out in the recent dispute. :) Everybody else (myself included) seems to be insane here.--Certified.Gangsta 23:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, Boney. :-) Bishonen | talk 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

This might seem weird, but why did Centrx block me for 1 second? Is that a brand of shame he want me to keep?--Certified.Gangsta 00:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on Geogre's vote page

See here for an update. Carcharoth 15:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Tawker's warning of Giano II

Bishonen, I'm not seeing what was so terrible about Tawker's warning. Yes, it's certainly appropriate to ask questions about a candidate's past history, but I don't think it's particularly appropriate to ask loaded questions, and I can't understand labelling Tawker's warning as intimidation. It's my understanding that ArbCom questions are intended to be informational rather than adversarial; "shown your true colours", to me, sounds like it came from questioning in the Canadian Parliament, not elections for the Arbitration committee. theProject 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To every uninvolved observer, Tawker's warning most certainly looked like an ill-conceived attempt at intimidation. It is not pleasant to see people intimidating superior editors with threats of blocks. As has been established on numerous occasions, these tactics never help to defuse the situation. I suggest Tawker should write a couple of featured articles before claiming a moral right to place such statements on talk pages of one of the best wikipedians around. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Except I am never intimidated. Regarding Ms martin's true colours many others have listed those plentiful attributes while opposing her, perhaps the Project, Tawker and Ms Martin's remaining friends would like to go and remove those votes, I'm sure Ms Martin would be delghted. Giano 18:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
And to Tawker -- and to me too -- the original question looked like a loaded question. Again, ArbCom questioning is supposed to be for requesting information, not making speeches shaped in the form of questions. So I still can't see why Tawker's warning was inappropriate. (By the way -- I did say Kelly Martin had my personal support, but she is no friend of mine, and I voted in opposition to her ArbCom candidacy.)
As for suggesting that Tawker write a few FAs first, I'm not following the logic. Although ArbCom has taken into account the service of established editors in suggesting remedies in the past, writing FAs doesn't give one a free pass in terms of everything else. If Wikipedia worked that way, our most established users would have free reign to be our most abusive. theProject 18:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
They do! Go away and listen to Kelly, she is on IRC now slagging us all off, including Geogre in that eloquent way of hers at this moment - charming woman such language. Giano 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm unable to access IRC right now (and haven't been able to for quite some time now), but I was hoping to hear from Bishonen about my original question. ArbCom questions aren't intended to be adversarial in nature, and Giano's brilliant FA editing (and I agree, it is extraordinary) doesn't exempt him from receiving warnings for things, so I'm still puzzled as to Bishonen's comment. theProject 18:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Npa templates, or user templates altogether, aren't supposed to be planted on established users. It's generally known (and gets a consensus on ANI every time it comes up) that using templates in such a fashion is much more inflammatory than calming. Real users—as opposed to anonymous vandals—should be addressed in a human voice and individual words. If you're aware of the infamous "cooling-down blocks" (which everybody also seems to agree never cooled down anybody or anything yet) which have been imposed on Giano by people who chose to dislike something "loaded" he said, I would expect you to see the "intimidating" aspect of planting a warning template about blocking on him. But I've discussed that issue with Tawker, and I don't really want to canvass his action here in the third person. It strikes me, btw, that nobody warned Cyde about the speech, thinly disguised as a question, that he posted on all the candidates' question pages. A few people questioned its appropriateness with great politeness and circumlocution. But threatening templates seem to be reserved for Giano. Bishonen | talk 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
Yes, I can understand now. Re: Cyde, it struck me as rather odd, and it certainly could have been worded much better, although it wasn't accusatory as to be loaded question. But thanks for the discussion -- it has been most clarifying. theProject 19:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Giano already knows all about the civility policy, so reminding him like that is akin to nagging, which is impolite. Mackensen (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh go and log into IRC Mackensen and listen to Kelly ranting, then come creeping back here and accuse me of incivility if you dare, go on be off with you - we've heard your reasonings before and they cut no ice then. You and your like are terrified to death of her. Giano 22:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification - and apology

You wrote: "Doc in his statement calls his role in the recent Giano RFAR case "silly"."

I'm afraid I may have not been as clear about this as I might have wished, and caused you to misunderstand me. Sorry. If I may explain, I do not regret my original action re Giano. I was an uninvolved admin. I had no history with Giano or any of his associates. I saw what I regarded as a self-evident personal attack on another Wikipedian. I administered a very modest block and, since such are often controversial, I reported the matter on ANI for peer review, adjustment, or reversal, if thought necessary. Most uninvolved persons on ANI agreed with me (granted, not all), but no impartial person ever suggested my action was in bad-faith or wholly unreasonable. I still believe I followed a course of action that was at very least reasonable.

My 'silliness', which I do honestly regret, was in getting "fired up" in the ensuing, and increasingly personalised, debate with Giano's friends. That was very poor judgement on my part, I should have left the matter to uninvolved parities to consider. A quiet withdrawal rather than a self-righteous defence would have served the community better.

Now at this juncture, I'll not make that same mistake by debating this further, or commenting on the actions of others. So, please do not think me rude, if I refrain from responding to any reply you may make on this subject. I simply wanted to clarify my statement. I genuinely have no desire for enmity between us, and, whilst I disagreed with your actions at the time, I apologise unreservedly if I said anything in that debate which was personally offensive or (more likely) unnecessarily hostile.--Docg 22:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I understood you fine, then. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Palladian architecture

PA is at FAR - no canned message, since you know the drill. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 01:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to you here. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mentorship

I did not know that Bunch Of Grapes was on a break/ill at all. One part of my mentorship is that I run all links by him, before placement, to see if they meet WP standards, such as WP:RS, other protocol. I do really appreciate your concerns, patience. This, and other reasons is why I asked about having more than one mentor. Will comply Bish. Martial Law 06:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You were given two mentors from the start. Please contact your other mentor. Please don't post on my page. Bishonen | talk 20:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Does it apply to Cyde?

It is a question that Cyde is free to ask. The type of question is of little importance although of course "have you stopped beating your wife" style questions are less than ideal they are allowed as is pretty much any other type of question includeing Cyde's.Geni 19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked you because I thought in good faith that you wanted to be impartial over "tidying" the questions pages. This is my day for disillusionment all right. Bishonen | talk 19:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
What an atrocious mess! I can do nothing but shake my head and quietly return to Mr. Foote's life. I can only imagine this an a modern day version of the pamphlet wars of the 18th century. All we need now is for a modern Milton to issue an Aeropagitica. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You never beleive what I tell you about this crew do you? Perhaps you will now. I told you exactly what their game was. Giano 19:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I am impartial which is why I am not going to be removeing actual questions. Comments are a different matter.Geni 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In view of these events, do you regard Giano's and Geogre's questions to Kelly Martin as appropriate? Mackensen (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. They were relevant and to the point. They weren't thinly disguised attacks on a third party. That's what Cyde's "question" to Paul August was, and frankly, your questions to me are beginning to fall increasingly into the same category. I'd appreciate it if you'd leave me out of your rhetorical games, Mackensen. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
I wasn't aware that I was playing rhetorical games, Bishonen. I asked a question, expecting an answer. I'm grateful to have received one; I only wish that I might have done so without having my integrity questioned–again. I will, however, withdraw from this forum. Think better of those who disagree with you. Mackensen (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Mackensen - I'm afraid I do not rate your integrity as highly as you seem to, you are almost as obvious as that little put up job on Ms Martin's talk page today [22]. I see Ms Martin's user page is now sporting an adaptation of Kylu's bumper sticker, (or whatever it is Americans call them) well it takes two to tango in harmony I suppose. However, you and your friends are now becoming as transparent as sunshine but far less cheerful. If this is how you all want to select an Arbcom - God help you. Or do you feel it entirely my fault Ms Martin only has 26 supports and 156 opposes? Much as I would love to take credit for that, I fear the entire responsibility lies with Ms Martin herself. I suggest you take yourself and your friends off and use your talents more constructively elsewhere, or if you have no useful edits to make go and chat on IRC or wherever it is you all normally chat. Good evening. Giano 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    Response moved to Giano's talk page. Bishonen, my apologies. Mackensen (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
My questions were about the job. If a person says, of another, "drama queen" for leaving and then leaves, it's fair to ask about the intemperate comments. If a person is applying to be dispute resolution and sees only victimization in her own censures and obvious villainy in everyone else's, that's bad. Further, during the Giano RFAR, I asked and asked and asked what "she has left" meant. Since she blanked her page, said she wouldn't respond, and said repeatedly (according to the pasted in blog) that she wasn't "at Wikipedia" anymore, it was a fair question. Would she do that again? The userbox wars were such as to make her withdraw before, and yet her characterization glossed over all that and suggested it was due to the virtue of being an administrator, so it was fair to ask if she had any faults in the matter and if she could assure people that those had been addressed. She could have said, "What I did was later made policy," but what I was getting at was whether or not she thought that it was appropriate to act without discussion and consent. All my questions were about that. All of my candidacy has been about that: no unilateral action and no unitary executive. There was no venom in my question, and I frankly suspect you are reading in what I never put in. Geogre 23:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your time.--MONGO 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

London Portal article of the month

I was a little surprised to see you delete Restoration spectacular along with its supports from the list of proposed articles of the month.[23] Any special reason? It was both more recently proposed, and had more support, than anything else on the list. Bishonen | talk 21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Have a look at the main Portal:London page or Talk:Restoration spectacular. As the most popular proposal, Restoration spectacular is the showcased article as of the first of this month. No further voting is therefore needed and it can be removed from the list. Don't forget that I made the proposal in the first place! Regards, [talk to the] HAM 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Freeze TM article

Hi, Bishonen. Will Beback seems to have been monitoring the TM article, so I asked him if he might freeze it, given the onslaught of changes an angry editor is making without first discussing. He didn't think it was warranted. Here's what I said to Will.[24] Your thougnts? Thanks!TimidGuy 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

An editor keeps disputing my understanding of the purpose of the Talk page to evaluate sources for reliability. This really has me confused. Would be great to hear from someone experienced like yourself.[25] Thanks. TimidGuy 18:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Timidguy, I'll take a look, but meanwhile: you don't know how to revert to an earlier version? You really need to know that. Seriously. Please see WP:REVERT. Just practise a little on your own userpage or something, if you find it alarming (I know I did at first), and bear in mind that you will not ruin anything. Anything you do can be undone. Just tell me, if the page explodes (but it won't), and I'll fix it. Bishonen | talk 19:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks so much, Bishonen. You're great. I'll take a look at that. Don't have much time until tomorrow afternoon to attend to what's going on.TimidGuy 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Assistance requested

I tried to create the user Puppy, as that is (increasingly) starting to mean me, but was told the name was taken. Cannot find it in the account creation logs, which is probably my fault since I cannot find me (KillerChihuahua) either. I know you have had some experience with this - could you possibly assist or point me in the right direction? Thanks much - KillerChihuahua?!? 19:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Use Special:Listusers to search for Puppy, and you will find him/her/it. No contributions. The account is probably too old to be in the log. There are also registered users called Puppy of Doom (talk · contribs) and Puppy from Hell (talk · contribs), along with a number of other puppy-related names. Upp◦land 20:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at the Village Pump discussion regarding usurpation of taken-but-longterm-unused usernames. Newyorkbrad 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks much to both of you! KillerChihuahua?!? 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The ongoing discussion doesn't seem to be going much of anywhere, unless I'm looking at the wrong one (I saw two.) KillerChihuahua?!? 21:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The policy discussion indeed seems to be stalled (I hadn't checked it in awhile), but I believe the bureaucrats (who deal with namechanges) handle these things once in awhile on a case-by-case basis. There was some discussion on this on WP:BN in October or November which should be somewhere in the archive. Perhaps an expert on this is User:Bishzilla, who I believe was able to obtain similar relief a little while ago; her page should be just down the hall from here, and she can tell you whom she spoke to. Newyorkbrad 21:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
She just did. Internet savvy users such as Bishzilla do such things on IRC. Bishzilla 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
He said no. :( KillerChihuahua?!? 22:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, well, if puppy don't have any dirt on him, naturally. Back to drawingboard. Bishzilla | grrrr! 22:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
Couldn't you try User:Puppy dog or User:The Puppy? AnnH ♫ 22:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Pupzilla? Bishzilla | grrrr! 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
[/me extracts slightly frayed little Raul654 from pocket and hands it to Puppy. Obligingly:] Try this one! Bishzilla | grrrr! 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

(reduce, after edit conflict) The Puppy I was thinking about already - who the heck is Puppy Dog? ;) Adding: Pupzilla? Then we'll have Muscialzilla, and Georgzilla, and Gianzilla, and a whole set of zilla-heads, and start a project: ZillaHeads. Um, thanks dear but no. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[Delighted] Gianzilla! Fine thought! Bishzilla | grrrr! 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't know precisely who said know, but User:Puppy appears to have zero edits, right? Maybe post to WP:BN and see if you can get a consensus to allow you to usurp, even if one 'crat didn't feel comfortable doing it on his or her own? Newyorkbrad 22:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears the now slogged down discussion has placed that in higher visibility, and I think I'd just be causing problems. So I present: The Puppy (capitol p, was that a mistake do you think?) The Puppy 22:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to think your making a concrete request might have precipitated a solution rather than created a problem ... but if you're happy, we're happy. :) Newyorkbrad 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Of course the puppy's happy. That's a puppy, puppies are happy most of the time. They cringe and whimper briefly, then they're done. :) KillerChihuahua?!? 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page

I've been reading your talk page, and I've found that your words flow much better when I read them with an Angela Lansbury accent. Bishonen, She Wrote. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. what I try for is more of Beatrice Arthur. Oh, look, I can have both! Bishonen | talk 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
I've always imagined something more akin to Emma Thompson. Of course, if you do sound like Bea Arthur then we should get together and sing "Bosom Buddies" from Mame. I'll be Mame (Angela) and you can be Vera (Bea).
(Both) "We'll always be bosom buddies, friends, sisters and pals.
We'll always be bosom buddies, if life should reject you, there's me to protect you.
(Vera) If I say that your tongue is vicious!
(Mame) If I call you uncouth!
(Both) It's simply that, who else but a bosom buddy will sit down and tell you the truth?
Hmmm, maybe this isn't a good idea, this sounds too much like the ArbCom election. :-) *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Bishzilla in actuality a petite, delicately fascinating, little wisp of a creature. Grrrr! Bishzilla 21:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC).


Request

Can you, Bog, ALoan, anyone merger this history page here [26] with the brief history page of Architecture of Aylesbury per the request on A of A's talk page? - if it is possible, I didnt know it was! Thanks Giano 07:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I did it. Look ok? DVD+ R/W 09:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

Thank you. Though how an IP in Korea leads to my being autoblocked in Japan, I don't know.

Perversely, I wish your unblock message, given its use of the verb "granted", had read "Your wish to be unblocked has been granted" <sparkly sound effects>. --Calton | Talk 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Behn been spammed?

I wasn't sure whether that "external link" was spammy or not (didn't click). I rolled back on "Augustan literature" because the guy who was adding it put it in the "See also" section, which gave me a solid excuse. However, that IP has been pretty dedicated about inserting that link various places. If it's spammy, I'll keep my eyes peeled and revert it whenever it gets plugged into one of my watchlisted articles. Geogre 11:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Levelling accusations of spamming always makes me nervous, but in this case, well, take a look at the IP's talkpage—those warnings. Plus, having an activity of 100% adding external links is inappropriate in itself, Wikipedia is not a link repository etc etc. It's not that the site in question is bad, but it's just like I tell the person: Google does it better, and a short list of really good and unique resources is much more useful. That reminds me, I used to go through the external links section at William Shakespeare now and then, on (a more urgent version of) the same "Wikipedia is not Google" principle, with a rousing talkpage speech. Perhaps it's time for another round there. Groan... I think I just lost interest. I'm all out of the rousing. Bishonen | talk 11:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Thing is, I try very hard to avoid OWN. I therefore end up leaving junk that I should revert. Someone caught a quote from a self-published novel pasted into Artistic inspiration yesterday. I feel like, if I jump on these things, I'm "OWNing," and if I don't, I'm negligent. This is probably largely due to my being the only person at some of these pages. In the event, unless I want to pour time into being a detective, I guess I'm better off waiting for someone other than me, if I'm the principle author on the article. (Generally, I do, with one notable recent exception.) Geogre 12:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

One is caught between a rock and a hard place. If you don't police your watchlist, the articles turn to mush; if you do, you worry about "own"ing them too much. Shrug. I know which is better for the encyclopedia. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes, Geogre and ALoan, no need to be so virtuous. It's entirely your own fault. If you don't like to be scolded for mutually incompatible crimes, don't insist on writing articles, that's all. Go copy-edit something. What's so hard? Look at me, I quit. You don't want to end up like this, do you? A lesson to us all. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
Oh, life is a constant lesson in humility. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

At your command! El_C 13:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, well done! Bishonen | talk 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
I'm getting some negative feedback, actually. Three editors took issue with the removal (Rintrah, Lou Sander, and Arpingstone). See my talk page. El_C 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I know! That's where you so well represent the outmoded concept of chivalry, it's wonderful! ! Bishonen | talk 15:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
Moi? That's unpossible! In fairness to their argument, some of the links do appear fairly substantive. The problem is that many others are not, or are redundant, duplicated across several articles, and so on. Should I bring this to wider review, you think? El_C 15:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Might I lodge an argument against the removal of the links to Luminarium.org? While the biographical sections are mostly excerpts from PD sources such as the 1911 Britannica, the site also provides links to scholarly essays and works as well as a good list of links to work available online. Certainly, this qualifies as a link that expands the readers knowledge of the subject rather than link spam. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The question is whether anyone would be willing to take it upon themselves to methodically go through each one, or do we simply turn a blind eye to the en mass insertion, including occasions when the benefit is negligable (at best). El_C 15:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I see your argument. I will add it back to the ones (in my watchlist) where it adds something and specifically link to the subject's page. Thanks for your diligence regarding linkspam, though! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It's fine by me to get rid of the en mass insertion of Luminarium links, which makes us all suspicious. But let us re-insert 'em one-by-one, if we look at 'em and think they belong. I don't want to get involved in any battles. I just know Luminarium has historically provided outstanding information about George Herbert, and I'd like to see it linked to by Wikipedia. Lou Sander 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I enitrely agree. That perfectly describes my position on this. Thank you for articulating that so clearly. El_C 01:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, this is an old problem: a quality site getting inserted everywhere. It's not a case of bad faith, exactly, but mass-produced anything is automatically suspicious, especially when there is a commercial benefit to the insertion. Even if the content is solid, the fact remains that a .com makes money through advertising, and those rates are dependent upon page rank, and we are a wonderful page rank escalator. Hand inserting is certainly better than allowing for a mass produced link list. Geogre 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is mass linking to quality really a problem? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is, yes. It's not a bad problem, but it is a problem. We're non-commercial and not for advertising. That's a really root principle of Wikipedia. If someone page rank boosts with us, even if it's for a site we like, they're still effectively making money off us. We don't accept ads for Amnesty International, even if every member of the site supports AI, or Doctors without Borders, and so we can't backdoor advertise even Bartleby.com. Again, it's not a bad problem, but it is still a problem, IMO. Geogre 19:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, FWIW

User_talk:MONGO#Trolling_wins KillerChihuahua?!? 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

where do i go from here?

As you might have noticed, the thread on the admin noticeboard about my unjustified 1 second block is dead. The compromise section intending to reach a peaceful resolution is untouched. No solution is reached at the end and Centrx basically just stop replying on the noticeboard and responding on his talkpage (except making up stuff like I accused him of vandalism which I didn't). So should I go ahead and get the armCom involved in order to set official policy for 1 second block or file a RFC against him? or should you contact Centrx and tell him to admit his mistake (since the community overwhelmingly condemn the particular use of 1 second block) and apologize on the block log? (like you told Alex a few months before thankz lol) Your suggestion will be greatly appreciated.--Certified.Gangsta 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope the community can handle this without the ArbCom, Boney. I've given the AN thread some CPR, edited the blocking policy[27], and asked Centrx to respond on AN. Let's see where that goes, to begin with. Bishonen | talk 03:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for reviving it!! I saw your post on my talkpage and what you said reflect my thoughts exactly. I mean, arbCom is gonna take a really long time. After checking out your proposal on the issue on admin. noticeboard, it seems like a definite policy can be made on 1 second block. I also checked out User:Centrx but he doesn't seem to regret his decision despite overwhelming consensus. An apology seems unlikely at the present moment. What is really disturbing is that the 1-second block is only one of the several ill-treatments (such as userspace harassment, stalking, etc) he imposed on me after my overly-harsh warning. --Certified.Gangsta 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

discussion about OD and with alec (alec page)

Go to the Alec page. Youll see why your formulation is a mistake. And go to the OD discussion page. Your "rather than " is totally innaccurate, it adds a mistake in an encyclopedia! May I add that the version you go back to is worse than that of Alecmconroy improved one: he had changed his old one and you put it back!

Louisar 17:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It's more convenient if this discussion is kept on Talk:Opus Dei rather than fragmented across multiple userpages, so I'll reply there. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

thanks for the warning . I didn't know that. I would like to know how we determine who is reverting what. Me? Someone else? It takes 2 people to do that. Thanks Louisar 19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

i see that alec has been warned. Ok I think i understand. I'll talk with him Louisar 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please click on the link I gave you to read about the three-revert rule, which is quite technical. If an editor's reverting, he/she is reverting: there is no question of an admin deciding that one side is "right" and the other side is "reverting" them. It's quite common for two people to be warned together, and sometimes (but I hope that won't happen here) blocked together. In this case, I have warned you and Alec. Mind you, I consider that you have been edit warring (again, please click on the link) a good deal more tenaciously than Alec has, as you have actually made one and the same revert three times, and in a mere couple of hours. But from the technical, 3RR, point of view, you're both just the same, and equally close to the blocking limit. I wouldn't block anybody myself for editing infractions at Opus Dei, as I've edited it and argued on the talkpage, but I'll report you guys at WP:AN/3RR if necessary, for an uninvolved admin to take care of. I hope that answers your questions. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC).


Bish, I was trying to help out with this page because it looked like Louisar had compromised with Alec about which version to use, but both were at 3RR. Apparently I reverted to the "wrong" version (naturally...it's always going to be the wrong version, right?). At this point I'm not sure whether I should revert myself, or try to restore some other version, or just let it sit as-is. Then I thought, "hey, why not just dump it on Bishonen, she doesn't have anything else to do". I'd be willing to either Save whatever version can be mutually agreed on, or simply support whatever version you think would be the best working model right now. Sorry for the further confusion on this page, I really was just trying to help : ( Doc Tropics 21:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts (go tell Bishzilla about them!) OMG, they agreed on that lead section? [Checking.] No, they didn't, another editor wrote it after you reverted. "Therefore members of Opus Dei fall under the jurisdiction of the local bishop"--right, say no more, that's horrible. Way to drive Alec to despair when he turns up. Alec and Louisar haven't agreed on anything, as I expect you know--what you see on Alec's page is just Louisar talking to himself. And what you reverted to isn't a bad version, it's my version, lol--endorsed by Alec earlier today. I suggest you just leave it, I don't think there's much point in editing the Lead for coherence right now. It doesn't have the right stuff in it. Maybe Tùrelio will see the coherence problem himself. If not, I sugget we let Alec take care of it, it's probably the least of his problems. Sigh. Bishonen | talk 23:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Heh, I'm more than willing to leave it, I'd rather not muddle the issue any further. A few more hours and things will be back to what passes for normal there. Fortunately Alec seems to have phenomenal patience on this topic. As for Bishzilla...I was thinking of hazing newbies by telling them they need to put a "welcome" template on her page : ) Doc Tropics 01:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

arbcom sheep votes

I would be interested in your opinion on this. It appears to me that the arbcom in their anxiety to appear even-handed mete out symmetric penalties for very asymmetric offenses. I understand their approach, too, that's why I wouldn't want an arbcom office. But by cracking down on anti-ideological vigilants they are seriously harming WP's immunity system preventing us from becoming a propaganda hosting service. dab (𒁳) 11:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. :-( I agree, dab. That looks terrible! All one can do is vote for the guy who makes this statement, I guess. I'm still outraged about this. The proposal wasn't accepted, but two arbs voting for it was two too fucking many in my book. Grrr. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Speaking of balloons

These tags always amuse me. It's not that they're always inappropriate or anything, but to see the Andree article with a "you could learn a thing or two from the other languages where it made FA" brings a smile. The spirit of the tag itself is fine. Shoot, it would be nice if monoglots looked at the other wikis and tried to translate their FA's into English. It's just that sometimes the line of influence is already established, and it goes in the other direction. (Which saying is not meant to diminish the efforts or skills or even additional information that the translators might have shown.) Geogre 12:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


re Renaissance architecture

I'd always wondered...

--Amandajm 22:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not aware of the full versatility of The Master, huh? Bishonen | talk 23:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
It's too good to delete....

I am about to create new pages for England, France etc, just leaving a brief intro and direction to the Main page.

Do you think that you, Giano, whoever else has the appropriate expertise could either enlarge or make the right links to Palladian Architecture, Wren and so on?

I'm planning on now writing the Influences on Ren. Arch. and the general features. --Amandajm 07:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite so! One must act with discretion....

--Amandajm 07:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Dear Mrs. Bishonen,

As an infrequent editor of Wikipedia, I am both horrified and disgusted at your recent edits. Such reference to bodily functions are unseemly and disgusting, and will not be tolerated on a clean living encyclopedia such as this. This "virtual tome" is read all over the globe from Idaho to to Cambridge, Mass. Impressionable young children and quite a few impressionable adults edit here - what are they going to think, when confronted by such obscenity and horrificies? No my own husband has been shocked to his core! Please in future act with proper decorum at all times

Yours affrontedly

Catherine de Burgh, (Lady)


I regretfully inform your Ladyship that some coarse and indelicate fellow has reversed your edits! Such are the habits of the masses when one permits them access to education. People with so little sensitivity should have their initials branded on their b.t.m as a warning to others.

--Amandajm 09:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Amandajm, I don't know anything about these matters, I'm afraid, always excepting the personal hygiene objets d'art. (Added a little more information there.) And enlarging Palladian architecture might be a little overweening, as it's already a Featured Article. Written by Giano. Bishonen | talk 10:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

No, I didn't mean enlarge Palladian I meant enlarge English Renaissance and make links to Palladian and anything else appropriate. Never mind, I'll fix the link, if I haven't already done so. Bishonen, sorry about the template being left on- I've been transferring stuff to new main articles in the hope that someone will enlarge them. My computer is terribly slow and I have to keep checking to make sure that what I'm putting elswhere doesn't simply double up on articles like Palladian architecture.

Can't we possibly have a whole page all about toilet paper roll holders? There are some charming remants of a past age in out-of the way w.c.s in the Houses of Parliament. Gothic, you know... along with the umbrella stands and ashtrays.

--Amandajm 11:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your actions show exquisite discretion, my Dear! People were beginning to give the poor old chook a hard time. --Amandajm 11:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't you call me a "Dear old Chook" let me tell you I was staying in the most architecturally pleasing hotels in Des Moins when you were still knee high to a grass hopper. An altogether more pleasing era, when people revered the Lord and had nice table manners. In those days if people knew about sanitation and toilet paper, they certainly did not refer to it. I registered an account in order to clean the site of obscenity and what do I receive insults [28]. If my dear late first husband was alive he would have died of the shock, (as it was he died of complications!). As a result of my treatment here I may very well join him! Catherine de Burgh 15:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that would be a great pity Giano 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Dear Lady Catherine,

I fully sympathise! I am afraid that some people here are what my third ex-husband would once have described as "a bit of a bind".

(Thinks) "There's much to be said for a real dunny with pumpkins ripening on the rusty tin roof, redback spiders in the corners to keep the mozzies in order, a tortoise-shell cat to eat the black snakes and a copy of last year's telephone directory hanging on a six-inch nail. Those were the days!"

--Amandajm 05:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandal at Philadelphia Convention

Could you please go Godzilla on this brat? He's very obviously a child who thinks getting vandalism warnings is fun, and he's not stopping. Thank you.  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 22:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Bishonen | talk 22:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
Repost from the vandal's talk page: W00t! Thank ya Bishie! HUG!  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 23:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Announcement
I've never tried to stop editing before; it wasn't as hard as I thought. How hard is it going to be to abandon something that's turned distasteful? I've been shocked at what Fred Bauder calls "the dynamics" of the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel, which Fred says that he doesn't understand.[29] I guess it really doesn't sound like you do, Fred. I don't exactly understand the dynamics myself either, but I happen to know something about what goes on there. I've looked out the footnoted bits of logs here for the benefit of those who need to know, at least those among them who have access to the logs themselves. Surely arbitrators do have, or can get, such access? But merely having access is not enough, the logs remain protected from the eye of penetration by sheer size. However, logs are simply searchable text, and that's where my footnote to selected extracts comes in. I hope many people will be able to read those log extracts, and have the curiosity to do it. They're no violations of privacy or personal attacks, so please restore the references to them if anybody should remove them from this page. I'm very sorry I can't simply post the extracts themselves, to make them truly accessible to the ordinary user, but that is not allowed. (The reasons include both major privacy concerns and something to do with sacrificial goats and/or dead chickens, see the ANI discussions.)

From what some admins have said in recent threads on WP:ANI, the en-admins channel was different earlier, and usefully served the purpose it had been created for. Some of the time now it still does; but a dedication to working out "safe" block rationales[1] and childish nya-na-na-na-na viciousness and squabbling[2] fill a lot of it. The bad blocks arising from certain en-admins habits and imposed on good-faith and hardworking contributors like for instance Giano have been devastating for the individuals hit. Unlike many of my friends I don't believe this is inherent in the medium, but it does seem to center or cluster round en-admins. I simply don't know what the hell happened. Some sort of tilt in the balance of power? Some sort of refusal to see, or mental laziness? Simply a project that hasn't scaled? Or even more simply, was the viciousness alwayus there and, exemplifying the mental laziness, I just became a litle less naive when affected personally ?

Anyway. This is an announcement. Giano has said he's out of here, after one bad block too many[30] turned into a proposal for "civility parole".[31] Now it's a hopeful fact that he has said so before and yet returned, enthusiasm dented but contributions still excellent. Therefore, I won't say definitely that I'm out of here too; but I do say that unless Giano returns, you've seen the last of me. That's just to let my friends know, really. I'm as vain as the next person, but I certainly don't have any self-important notion that the project needs me or will notice or remember my presence or absence. Wikipedia would do just fine without me, and without all the people who're continually leaving with less or more fanfare. At lest, it would do fine if it was doing fine. I don't think it is doing fine. It can do without the individuals and never notice they're gone, sure, but what about the wedges being driven between user and user[32] [33] [34]? Bishonen | talk 22:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Notes

  1. ^ December 22 from
    "I need to issue a npa warning to an editor but I am Involved in a dispute with said user"
    to
    "before they could sue me" .
  2. ^ December 24 from
    "Well can we discuss blocking in the general"
    to
    "and i think it's very obvious how unwelcome"
    December 27: from
    "bishonen: what happened on christmas eve"
    and from
    "In any case, that comment has caused some folks"

wow!

I read your announcement above and I'm not even sure if I am allowed to post here anymore. Anyway, I actually came to say good-bye since I'm leaving wikipedia , but it seems like you're a step ahead of me. Well I just wanna thank you for helping me out on many issues/disputes since my arrival despite my poor reputation in this project. Apparently all the best editors who have good faith in the project are gone. To me, it seems like the eventual downfull of this system. A failed experiment to a certain degree. I just wanna say you're the best admin I've met so far and it has been truly a great time working with you. :) --Certified.Gangsta 07:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on where you're going? Citizendium doesn't seem to be up and running, but there's commons, and if you speak another language, that opens up other options. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, there were millions of human-hours invested into this project and there are not that many productive contributors. Every single one go hurts the project a big deal. I left a message on the Giano's talk and I repeat it here the clique of the admins you have problem with is relatively small and there are thousand of active admins and probably even more productive users. Go figure. I got my admin bit for a single purpose: to create workable and enjoyable environment for the productive editors. If I fail in this task I do not need it Alex Bakharev 13:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A few thoughts

Hello Bish,

our paths have not often crossed, although I have followed your work with great admiration; nevertheless I thought I should leave a comment. I needn't repeat what a loss for the project it would be if you left, because that's abundantly clear, so just let me express my gratitude: there have been few contributors as intelligent, witty, productive, or cheerful, and, contrary to your thoughts, you have already left a lasting mark on Wikipedia. As for the social dynamics, it's much harder to tilt them into the right direction, but I am convinced that you have also done so. It has always been my impression of your style that you have remained firm in that civility is more than a buzzword, and that's a great achievement in such a hostile environment. If you foster thoughts of continuing with Wikipedia, I am sure you have been offered lots of advice; mine is probably just the same: get emotionally disinvolved. Delete your watchlist (that may be hardest bit, as predictably some articles lose in quality when one highly engaged editor fewer watches them. For me, it was an incredibly helpful step). Consider renouncing your admin status (the second really hard step; I am however convinced that it has helped me a lot to stay active at all and not leave for good in indignation). Take a long break. Keep in contact with a few selected Wikipedian friends. Rediscover real life. After a long while, look back and, if you feel like it, return with the attitude of an elder statesperson. I wish you all the best. Gott nytt år! Kosebamse 09:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hope you are still lurking. I've made a similar, but less drastic decision. I'll still be writing some articles, but it's someone else's problem to fight over them, to look for vandalism, etc. And I'll think it over again in half a year, which I recommend that you do, too. - Jmabel | Talk 20:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Another very long time user, another serious contributor, another person in there, hip deep, trying to manage articles, and you're having to walk away from it, too? Great. It's not that there is turnover. We always have people fading away and fading in, but I see a clump of about four users who have been responsible for the departures of about six major long-time users, and generally with their own self-importance and bristling and revenge campaigns.
  • As I've recently written on my talk page: suppose you are insulted, even explicitly, by name, and accurately. Now, is that going to make you quit Wikipedia? Is it some place where it's unavoidable? So, what is the cost of that insult? Now, you're going to block that nasty user for that nasty talk and that nasty attitude. Is that more or less likely to make that user leave than the insult? Is that block going to make a long time contributor leave, or just a pest? Is it going to mean the departures of three other users? What value, exactly, do you value on your self-opinion? Is your character so important that the loss of four other users, even if they're only little contributing, worth your pride? What would it take for you to relax, to say, "Dang, I don't like that guy" or even, "Oh yeah, well, I don't like you, either?" For a certain knot of users, their own pride is far, far more valuable to them than the contributions of several others to the project.
  • Part of this is the danger of teen people, where adolescence means a constant battle for ego, but there are no brakes. Ugh.
  • Oh, and user:Geogre/Comic is working now. It's a graphic novel version of the latest dispute. :-) Geogre 14:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me add my own note to this litany of sorrow. You were the first person to really help me out and take an interest in my work here. To get such marvelous feedback from someone who, as I quckly learned, deserved such great respect heightened my own confidence in my contributions. Indeed, your talk page has been a learning experience, kinda like discovering a virtual 18th century coffee house filled with a marvelous assortment of fascinating characters. Looking about lately, it seems like everyone is leaving and the landscape appears more and more barren; littered with junk articles on worthless pop culture. I pray this isn't farewell. Take care, dear! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddened

Hi, thank you for spending the time to look over my RfA and comment. By voting in RfAs, Wikipedians help to ensure the quality and character of admins. I believe that you were acting from an appropriate sense of duty when you voted oppose. Nevertheless, I am saddened by the fact that you hold about me the views that you do. Please have a good new year. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 14:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I answered you in part on my talk page.

I'm not sure I made the hugest amount of sense; I'm still up at 10:30 am having been up all new year's night, and I'm tired and not entirely sober. Probably shouldn't be here at all.

I'm not sure how I can express how it hurts me to see good contributors - such as yourself and many others - as burned out of this place as you sound. There is too much poison here. I have no good ideas of how to drain it. Good ideas from yourself and others are always welcome, if there are any. Something is very wrong when it is the people who do serious, intelligent, in-depth work on the encyclopedia who are wanting to leave.

I get the feeling that you thought I was talking about the problem as if Giano was the problem. That wasn't my intention - I was sounding out things in general, rather than specifically. My apologies. I will examine my wording in the morning.

Thank you. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A note

Hey there. I never meant to pry, or badger you, and I'm deeply sorry if I came off that way. I'm not really acquainted too much with the situation, and I apologize if in my niavete or ignorance I've brought up things you have asked others not to bring up. My apologies, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Bishonen | talk 02:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Ghirlandajo

Bish, the same is with me: he is not answering my E-mails either. The last time I contacted him he was strongly upset by the recent developments but he did not have any intentions to leave. His lost would be a devastation blow for the Russia-related articles and a significant loss for Wikipedia in general. I do not know what to do and can only hope for the best Alex Bakharev 04:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's any help, recall that on the arbitration page, Ghirlindajo wrote that he would be away in real life and pretty inactive here for a couple of weeks because of the holidays. Newyorkbrad 11:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, it is a good news Alex Bakharev 11:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
More specifically, see here (first paragraph, last sentence). I believe there was another reference elsewhere but haven't found it. Newyorkbrad 16:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year, Bish! This year is only going to get better, mark my words! El_C 04:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Curious question

Bishonen, I have a question for you -- what's the purpose of this page? JusticeGuy 08:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, look at that. I can't believe I edited it as late as this summer, but clearly I did. It's some links to users that I've at some time wanted to be able to find easily, for various reasons.
I ought very much to tell you why you are linked on that list, and I've spent some time thinking, but I simply can't. I listed you in June 2006, as you can see, along with Frutti di Mare. I know what my interest in Frutti was—in fact, with some effort, I know why they're all there, except you. I'm reduced to asking: do you remember any interchange we've had, especially in early June..?
I'm sorry, I wish I could tell you. It must have been a rather weird sensation to find yourself listed like that, without any info about why... :-(. I will delete the list. (In any case, most of it obviously isn't any longer to users I'm interested in.) I created it when I was a much greener user, and I didn't see it as inappropriate then, but I do now. Bishonen | talk 09:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
I've only edited a handful of times (see my contribs). Could it be that you saw one of my edits to wikipedia:featured articles? JusticeGuy 16:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You edited FA well after I added you to the list, so that don't make no sense to me. A mystery! Bishonen | talk 17:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Hotel Wikipedia

Thanks for your thoughts. I suspect that most if not all dropouts continue to be present in some form or other, and I wonder if anybody who has ever become truly involved can even leave for good. Which is not neccessarily a bad thing for Wikipedia. Whether it's good for the individual user is a different question, but it's always a good idea to be honest with oneself. I have come to accept that you can log out any time you like, but you can never leave. My approach, i.e. casual editing as "admin emeritus", feels just fine, and harbours a little good karma into the bargain, so I'll go on with it. And as far as Giano is concerned, I can't offer much of a comment, as his story is too complex and too long for me to overview, but I have read the IRC logs in question, the arbcom case and a few other things, and would conclude that there's more at stake than the fate of one highly respectable user (plus yours and several others'). One question that comes to mind, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I don't doubt that many Wikipedians will be tempted to step into the age-old trap and try to tackle a social problem by technological means - more bureaucracy, less transparency. If the problem is recognised at all. But I myself have no good idea what should be done, either. Anyways, please keep up your spirit, and again, all my best wishes. Kosebamse 13:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Butting in: that's the question I keep asking others to answer. For myself, I know the answer, as I didn't have to think it up. We, as humans in society, have had to sort this matter out already, in Athens and Rome. The answer is "all." Only community can assess the validity of the community guardians. That means making it possible and attractive for the community to see, and it means, very importantly, an educated community. We don't want to hang Senna the Poet. Geogre 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Even yet more thoughts

I don't think it's any secret that I am a very ardent (too much so no doubt) member of the Bishonen fan club. Your articles are an enormous pleasure to read and easily among the best we have. Anyone who hasn't yet read Restoration spectacular or S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 should go enjoy them right now, and see what featured articles are meant to be. I know the act of writing around here has become less fun as time has gone by; I have the same problem myself.

Working and joking alongside you have given me a ridiculous amount of enjoyment over the time I've known you. I've looked inside myself over and over again and truly have no idea if I would be able to continue as a Wikipedian if you were to leave. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Carcharoth asked me an architecture question, and I think it's worth pasting my reply here.
"*The answers, of course, would come from Giano. My architectural expertise is limited to knowing where to find the door and the toilet. Giano knew estates, manorial houses, and architectural history, and he did the best job of writing up the architecture with just enough of the history to go in to illuminate without sidetracking the thing. It's a rare skill, despite what anyone will tell you. Any fool can crib from a reference work. Any fool with a library can compile the data from multiple references. An actual author, an actually good author, can balance information, synthesize points of view, and manage to present a cogent argument that is NPOV and representative of contemporary scholarship. That's what Giano did. It's what Bishonen has done with elements of British history, Swedish history, and theatrical history. I'd like to think I hit that a few times, too. A good article is not Frankenstein wiki-itis, where, like a sticky bun in the trash can, bits are sticking out in all directions...."
Polemics followed, but the point I made there stands. An actual author, an actual expert editor, does not just throw in reworded stuff (the way I've done several times...cited, non-plagiarized, but not exactly intellectually strenuous), but rather holds a thesis, merges information from references along a principle of selection, provides analysis without inserting the much-feared Original Research, and knows exactly how much sex and violence, how much digression and factual compilation, will work to make a good account. Such a person similarly has control of her language, varies sentence structures, provides surprises in the sound as well as sense of the line. That's what Bishonen does, what Giano did, and what my few best have done, and it is absolutely not a common skill. Geogre 03:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a common skill. I am not very good at it myself (I just make do with cribbing from reference works, and compiling data from multiple references. But then I like sticky buns.)

Anyway, happy new year to you. As I just said to Giano, it looks like I missed all of the excitement. Funny what can happen while you are away for a few weeks. Please don't go, at least, not permanently. A wikibreak for a bit of fresh air is all well and good, but I (we) would miss you awfully. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

:-)

¿Why1991 ESP. has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.



Happy editing!!!--¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

MONGO likes candy

But am willing to share if you stick around!--MONGO 11:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Geogre eats billygoats and brownies

Sheriff Bart has a candygram, but I have brownies! They're on delft, so you might suspect that they're not my brownies, but I found them, and that makes them mine. Geogre 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Geogre lives under a bridge, but he likes brownies & gives some to you.


Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 12:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the encouraging words. A glass of beer definitely makes me feel good :). And I mean, the whole project right now is just a pain in the ass. I just reviewed my block log and found a couple of blocks that are either unjustified, unprovoked, or out-of-process. (you already know how much I resent that 1-second block) And admins on IRC conspiring/baiting to scare y'all away is just fucked up. (I know I'm supposed to be a positive role model and all that on wiki, but that's that.) Just scanned through some of the articles you and Giano wrote and it's like wow, I'm so impressed. Anyway, take it easy... can't type when I'm drinking, you know, so I'm outta here. Btw, I know this sounds lame and cliche-ish but there's always light at the end of a tunnel. Who knows? Maybe y'all might get to stay after all.--Certified.Gangsta 17:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Query

Hello Bish, all the best in the new year to you! Hoping you can explain why there are little numbers with a + or - in front of them on the articles displayed on my watchlist. Is this a new thing or have I just been missing it till now? Inquiring minds need to know! See you round the 'wiki. Hamster Sandwich 18:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The numbers show how many gigabytes were added or subtracted by the change in the article. Hope that helps. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Bytes, not gigabytes, though it's fun to imagine what it would be like if people were making gigabyte-sized edits. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Groovy. Thanks beautiful peoples! Hamster Sandwich 18:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
If it's an edit I've done, it's terabytes. Geogre 22:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You are thinking of Bishzilla's terror bites. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perplexity

Well, I looked at the diff, and I still can't figure it out. What exactly means "Un-sunkissing the puctuation"? Curiously yours, - Nunh-huh 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, it's supposed to be "punctuation". Giano punctuates lightly, with occasional run-on sentences, and is fond of claiming that this characteristic prose is his national (Italian) heritage. That the sentences are inimitably "sunkissed". By un-sunkissing them, I meant adding some dots and commas. Bishonen | talk 05:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
Oh. Well, at least it wasn't self-explanatory. I don't feel so bad not understanding :) - Nunh-huh 19:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
What, you've never been unkissed before? I have, plenty. Mostly by women, but I suppose it would be possible with the sun, too, given that Apollo was somewhat polyamorous. Geogre 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts from one more well-wisher

Hello Bishonen -- Add me to the many others hoping you decide to reengage with the project. You said above that Wikipedia would do just fine without you, if it were doing fine in the first place. Two points:

First, Wikipedia will always "do fine" in the sense of never missing anyone. It's real people--our friends and admirers--who miss us, and you have battalions of them here, including many, like me, easily unnoticed on the periphery of your acquaintance. You said somewhere recently that you care far more about your friends than about the project. So please look beyond the plight of one friend and consider what all of your friends are saying and feeling. People here have benefited immensely from interacting with you and from the model set by your contributions. They are truly distressed by the prospect of losing you.

Second, Wikipedia is the human race's most ambitious experiment in the democratization of knowledge dissemination. Nothing so gloriously extravagant could (or should!) go smoothly. Error, foolishness, incivility, and cacophony come with the territory. But if the human race presses forward with projects like Wikipedia, then slowly--very slowly--it can teach itself to behave better.

So please stick around, Bishonen. Your penetrating mind and big heart mean so much to your friends and equip you like few others to deal with this gorgeous monstrosity of a project. WikiPedant 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope, Bish, that you take a break, but come back. Vi mösta har svenskpratar här! Bo-Lingua 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Block warning

I will not add the warnings again, but could you get Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) to stop vandalizing my user page [35] [36]? Certified.Gangsta is making unjustified accusations on his talk page while deleting and censoring ALL my comments. Could you do something about that? Certified.Gangsta is using his talk pages to make unjustified accusations about me while censoring and deleting ALL my comments that refute the accusations. Could you restore the comments without the warning templates? Guardian Tiger 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) is now repeatedly vandalizing my userpage. Can you take a look into this? Guardian Tiger 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your temperate response. I have written to Certified.Gangsta on his page, please take a look. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the response. Certified.Gangsta is making unjustified accusations on his talk page while deleting and censoring ALL my comments. Certified.Gangsta is using his talk pages to attempt to mountain a campaign against me. He is censoring and deleting ALL my comments that refute the accusations. Is there anything that can be done about this? Guardian Tiger 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
In case you didn't notice my response, User:Nlu doesn't wanna get involved. Plus, I don't wanna escalate this issue or Guardian Tiger will go around spamming user talkpages making personal attacks then I'll probably end up getting blocked. What I suggest is this, you or one of your admin friend may want to do some investigation on User:Guardian Tiger, User:RevolverOcelotX, and most importantly the indef. blocked account User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH, it isn't that hard to tell. If it was determined that they are the same person, then block all the socks without checkuser. If the conclusion is I was wrong, which means I am being a complete pain in the ass, then block ME. Does this sound good? Is it really that hard to block an obvious sock? That's all I ask, please.--Certified.Gangsta 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Another thing is that I made a timeline of this incident on my talkpage. Feel free to edit it and add the bits you participated in. Hopefully you will understand why I am so pissed off.--Certified.Gangsta 03:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) has shown no policy violations and made specious accusations of "personal attacks" of which there are none. Certified.Gangsta is attempting to use his talk pages to attempt to mountain a campaign against me where he can delete and censor my comments that refute his accusations. I believe this is an abuse of talk page guidelines, is there anything that can be done about this? Guardian Tiger 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Gangsta and Tiger, I'm trying to figure this conflict right now. I have a lot on my mind, as you know, Gangsta, and I really can't blame the admins who have given up on it, but hopefully I'll come to some conclusion. If I see cause, I'll contact a CheckUser myself. Please both of you just ignore the other person's talkpage for now. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
Without having followed all the links, CheckUser isn't normally used in personal disputes because it doesn't really matter if socks are being used - there's no rule against being an idiot from multiple accounts. Checkuser is usually reserved for people suspects of violating blocks or using multiple accounts for voting. This sounds more like a job for the mediation cabal. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Gangsta's contention isn't merely that Guardian Tiger is a sock or reincarnation (which he obviously is, since he sprang into fully-competent action on December 27, more aware of wiki vernacular, procedures and fora than any newbie could be). It's that he's an abusive sock of a banned user. That's the accusation I'm looking into. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
Bishonen, Certified.Gangsta has cited no policy violations or violations of WP:SOCK. There are no grounds for a CheckUser, which I believe Certified.Gangsta repeatedly filed in an attempt to harrass me and gain leverage in a massive number of content disputes. None of the accounts Certified.Gangsta mentioned are blocked or banned. Certified.Gangsta has shown no evidence of "abusive sock" or "banned user". Certified.Gangsta is repeatedly calling for blocks and bans in an attempt to gain leverage in content disputes on China/Taiwan-related pages. Guardian Tiger 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You're mistaken. The account RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely for its disruptive editing on 1 November, 2006. Is that your account? There certainly are similarities between your account and that, for instance the repetitious talkpage posting. I suggest you do yourself a favour and let me check this out without continually bringing such family likenesses to my attention. Could you instead please explain how you could be so wiki-savvy from your very first day of editing? Bishonen | talk 01:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
The account that RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH was linked to, User:RevolverOcelotX was not block or banned indefinately. There are many reasons an editor could be wiki-savvy but it is not a policy violation or grounds for an repetitive and harassing checkuser. Bishonen, no offense, but it appears you known Certified.Gangsta for some time and I don't exactly consider you a very neutral admin to give a third opinion in this dispute. I find the subpage you created to be highly unappropriate and can be seen as helping Certified.Gangsta mountain a campaign against me. I find that highly inappropriate and respectfully request that you delete the subpage. See what other users had to say about Certified.Gangsta's behavior. Guardian Tiger 01:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a response to what Bishonen posted on my talk page. Whether or not RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH was block or not is irrelevant. The fact is the original account that RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH was linked to, User:RevolverOcelotX was not block or banned indefinately. If you look at the different account's contributions, you would see that none of the accounts are editing at the same time or in the same time frame. Whether or not RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH's indefinite block was justified or not is up for debate but it seems one of the reason it wsa blocked was because of WP:USERNAME. Another user explained this situation here in which he says: "In one instance, he [Certified.Gangsta] successfully obtained the blocking of a likely sockpuppet of User:RevolverOcelotX, even though it was a legitimate sockpuppet was not violating policy as per WP:SOCK; in that instance, User:RevolverocelotX explained that the alternative account was created because the main account was, at the time, inaccessible, and there was no evidence to cast any doubt on that argument." If anybody is "pestering" or "following around" anybody, its Certified.Gangsta, which a glance through his contributions will show. A checkuser would be repetitive and unwarranted as there is no evidence of any actual policy violations. In fact, I haven't posted on Certified.Gangsta's talk page since you've asked me not to. I don't believe there actually a dispute at the moment because Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) already repeatedly claimed he is leaving on his talk page - he just seems to be trying to get my account blocked as a personal vendetta or is a very manipulative person that is pretending there is a current dispute (when there isn't one). In fact, Certified.Gangsta has made his intentions clear here where he made false accusations of "personal attacks". Certified.Gangsta has made personal attacks himself where he calls me "that fucking sockpuppet". Certified.Gangsta also stated "I've said I'm outta here but I'm not gonna go quietly." which shows his bad faith intention in calling for blocks and bans and making personal attacks in order to prove his point. Please reply here and keep the discussion in one place. Thanks. Guardian Tiger 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi Bishonen, User:RevolverOcelotX/User:Guardian Tiger/User:Apocalyptic Destroyer has posted to my page that he will no longer use any of those accounts, that he will henceforth use ApocalypticDestroyer's as his "main and only account". [37] Regards, Ben Aveling 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Autobiographical articles

Hi, in your comments on my RFA, you expressed some concerns about my response to a question dealing with a potential situation where the subject of an article edits their own article. While patrolling recent changes, I noticed this edit [38] where User:Hueys20 asserts that he is Bill Huard. I added the welcome template to the user's page and pointed him to Wikipedia's guideline on autobiographies. Any other advice you have about what I should do / should have done in this situation would be appreciated. Thank you. --BigDT 04:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Literature

So, the main page FA today says that "Half Life 2" "gathered near unanimous positive reviews." Adverb anyone? Our hypercorrective style sheet folks let that go? The "limp prose" people didn't notice that the English language does not allow adjectives to modify adjectives? They don't know that "near" (as in "almost") is not an adverb? On the other hand, our first successful collaboration will be on the main page next week, and I'm sure it will be on FAR for footnotes the day after. Geogre 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Near unanimous" is a bit like "almost unique". Here, "near" means "not". -- ALoan (Talk) 13:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"The main character is a lesbian, which is a more or less unique experience, especially for a farm girl." -- Unnamed former student who is probably worth five times more than I will ever spend. Geogre 21:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they mean that being a lesbian more or less excludes not being a lesbian? Or maybe not. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, they all went on to fortune, if not fame, while I remained stuck behind a pile of essays. They went on to "cell" people and "mobile" them, to "incentivate" their customers, and to "proactively value add" to their bank accounts, while I kept hoping the Democrats would win so that the government cheese program would have real cheese in it some year.
    • A very recent one from a student who may not rise to such heights, "The add for Campbell's Chunky Soup leads to the words Campbells Chunky Chili Soup It Feels You Up Right." In the margin, I wrote, "That's something I don't want my soup to do, upright or prone." Geogre 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, that is funny. Did they mean "defecting", perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I didn't want to say it, but you force my hand. A nice young man, now the head of a company, I'm sure, wrote, "Desdemona cannot analize her situation and therefore loses control." Geogre 12:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I just read this thread above. When I got to the "thanes … defecating" above it was the first good belly laugh I've had for what seems like ages now. Thanks Bish, et alii. Paul August ☎ 17:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • My paternal Grandmother, a noted malaprop, once told us at dinner, "Since we've moved to Portugal we don't accept invitations to dinner. I feel that if we were to accept I would be obliged to retaliate". (we think she meant reciprocate but we were to busy laughing)--Mcginnly | Natter 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps they meant defalcating. BTW, I found out today that my name is an anagram of "Venal being". I had to go look it up - someone has way to much time on his hands. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This was too funny. Ben, you may be interested to know that anagram-wise, you are a navel being (accurate) as well as a vine bangle(not certain about the accuracy of that one, do you swing from the trees a la Tarzan often?) but in this puppy's opinion you are certainly not venal. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, I don't object to a drop of vino. I don't think I'm more venal than the next person, but perhaps it's worth remembering that we are all at least potentially corruptable? B Vine Angel 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "The Duke of Ferrar has put his wife on a pedal stool" was one student's reading of the Robert Browning poem, while another (not a malapropism) said, of a passage, "Gringolet has just killed a man and is hoping that the matter may be settled with a prudent marriage" (you have to click on the link to see why that was a crackup). (Wouldn't a vine bangle encircle a vine and then hang loose and clack whenever the vine goes into its purse? Or would it require familiarity with "Walk Like an Egyptian?") Geogre 13:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing eh? Ok, how about this one. I don't know the student, because it came from a state-wide regent's exam: all students have to pass it to get to be juniors in college, so the authors of these gems were sophomores in college:
    1. "You should never take your senses for granite."
    2. "It's a doggy dog world out there."
    3. "It was the same thing for all in tents and porpoises."
    4. (It was expensive) "it cost a nominal egg."
  • Now, 1-3 are apparent mistakes, but I'll let the reader figure out #4 on her or his own. Geogre 12:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd say that the state, or at least parts of it, must have non-rhotic tendencies? Palmiro | Talk 02:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Nah. Purposes and porpoises are equally rhotic, but those nominal eggs were the most outrageous. (Try saying, "it cost a nominal egg" very quickly, with no pause between words. It's an interesting case of a blend and break, the same way that "a norange" became, in English, "an orange.") Geogre 03:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
"an arm and a leg"? Regards, An evil Ben G
Re nominal egg, I believe the term is "eggcorn".
Re "orange", nāraṅgaḥ → nārang → nāranj → naranja → arangia → arancia → orenge -> a norange, apparently. See also an ewt. The question is, what did (English) people call the colour "orange" before there were naranjas (ah - "geoluhread" apprently. Snappy.). Also confer Tyrian purple, which was nearly red.
Anyway, I have to share a quotation from Vertue from a short biography of Hogarth I am reading: Moll Hackabout "..was sent to bridewell by SrSt John Gonson Justice and her salivation and death." I suppose we can excuse him, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it cost an arm and a leg. The problem with assuming these are "eggcorns" is that this is the substitution of a high falutin' word for a very common set of words. "An arm and a leg" is much easier to understand than a "nominal egg." Prior to the color orange, there was yellow -- a word whose meaning and usage far predate the band Coldplay. Given that poor Moll's profession required a great deal of loss of humors, she may well have died had she had to salivate. The first postage stamp came along later, so we cannot assume she was sent to lick stamps all day as punishment. Saint John Gonson? Surely that's another goof. Geogre 12:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
"St" was my mistake - the original says "Sr". Well, "geoluhread" is apparently "yellowy-red" ("I'm just mad about Saffron... they call me geoluh yellow". -- ALoan (Talk) 14:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • For statements of the obvious rather than mistakes, I have seen, "The South is great. Just look where it's located!" I have also gotten, "Diet is very important to people on diets." A professor of mine swears he once got, "It was a virgin field into which the hand of man had not yet set foot." Geogre 12:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.

I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Re:User:Guardian Tiger

Hi there, I noticed that you have indef blocked User:Guardian Tiger. May I ask what are the grounds for that blocking, aside from User:Guardian Tiger being the same person as User:RevolverOcelotX? I was of the understanding that only abusive sockpuppets get blocked. Checking through User:Guardian Tiger's history, I didn't see anything which is particularly abusive. --Sumple (Talk) 23:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. Did you click on this very damning edit, which was part of my block message to Guardian Tiger? Here's some stalking. Here's a removal of a talkpage post on the argument that it's a "diatribe." Here's a discussion on WP:ANI, showing that uninvolved admins who have reviewed the block agree about the abuse. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
I see. By analogy, User:Certified.Gangsta should have been blocked a long time ago.
Here is a removal of a talkpage post on the purported basis that it's an "unjust accusation".
Here is a racist attack.
Here, here, and here are some evidence of stalking.
Here, here, and here are some evidence of systematic vandalism.
No, I don't agree with the approach of User:RevolverOcetlotX or whatever he's called this week, but I find it ridiculous that someone like User:Certified.Gangsta, who is either a blatant vandal and troll, or ignorant as a cucumber, can be allowed to run around wasting everyone else's time when others who are not nearly as disruptive (i.e. User:RevolverOcelotX) are being indef blocked.
If you don't believe me about the vandal/troll/cucumber comment, look through the history of the diffs I supplied above: almost every single one of User:Certified.Gangsta's article edtis gets reverted by reputable editors. No doubt User:Certified.Gangsta will claim that they are all the same people/all sockpuppets of each other/all Communist China stooges, but such claims only goes to prove my point.
Anyway, I have vented my spleen. I have no intention to do anything about my dissatisfaction. Thank you for your time, and happy editing. --Sumple (Talk) 12:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Guardian Tiger

In case you haven't noticed, there has been some shocking developments in the last few hours. User:Guardian Tiger created a new sock to evade his community ban and returned to editing without community consensus or arbCom ruling. The most outlandish accusation his new sock made is accusing User:Isberg to be your sockpuppet. I don't believe it. Anyway please refer to my talkpage if you're interested.[[39]] (sorry it's not in diffs).--Certified.Gangsta 23:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had trouble getting somebody to eyeball the situation, Boney. I'll try again tomorrow, or try to try. In case I'm not around anymore, please contact CheckUser Mackensen directly and ask him to review, he already knows the facts. As for Isberg and the page Isberg/Conflict, what can I tell you? I appreciate your indignation on my behalf, but it's misplaced. Nice friendly little sock! Sure it's mine.

Bishonen | talk 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm not going to worry about that. But the problem is that how exactly did Guardian found the Isberg account even though Isberg had made no interaction with the wiki community outside of her subpage, talkpage, and userpage? This seems a little creepy. --Certified.Gangsta 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen/Archive_9&oldid=1146495356"