User:Bishonen/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Would you like a Swedish massage? (last chance).

Contents

[edit] Thank you

I want to thanks for all your support. I know you have been very hurt by the disgusting treatment you have received in this horrible debacle. As you, together with Geogre, are amongst the encyclopedia's finest and most valuable editors you deserved better. However, I'm planning to say little more on the subject unless I'm attacked again. I have proved my point about the IRC admin channel, and many people (whose opinion matters to me) now seem to believe all I have ben saying was true. The channel is now thoroughly discredited and will never be a source of power again, and used by anyone of Wikipedian value - it is now basically finished - no one will ever believe a word that emanates from it again, no doubt a few little firecrackers will continue to pop on admins notice boards and such places but I think people can now evaluate such comments for themselves and see them for what they are dying embers of a former power base. Once again thanks for your support in this. I have appreciated it. Giano 10:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

De nada, Giacomo. I wish the Wikimedia foundation would remove the official-sounding name from #wikipedia-en-admins, that's all. It's all wrong that that poison pit should have "Wikipedia" in its name. And who's going to remove this claim in WP:IRC: "The Wikipedia channels on freenode are the official place to chat about Wikipedia on IRC." The arbcom have shown that statement to be false--nothing official about it, no Wikimedia control of it. Bishonen | talk 13:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
I've made the change. I mentioned it on the talk page to the IRC page. We'll see what happens next. Geogre 13:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I went one step further [1]. Cheers. Ben Aveling 11:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately within minutes of me announcing I was stepping back Tony and the IRC gang immediately began to blacken my name again on IRC [2] I never believed the new "policemen" would bother to do anything about it, but I did expect at least a pretence! Giano 13:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration literature question

Congratulations on the front page article - seems it's been listed for ages though. It's really nice to see an overview article of such quality there. It seems sometimes, that only the more marginal, niche articles can jump the hurdles, whilst the invaluable overviews get bogged down in disputes and difficulties - getting a single editorial 'voice' for these articles is a real achievement. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's on today? Cool. Geogre wrote it, you know, I just contributed a section. He's the one with the soaring eagle eye! Bishonen | talk 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
Yes, it is, and it's wonderful too; I've set it aside to look forward to reading in detail in the morning. Newyorkbrad 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I will be reading it this morning as well as I don't think I've read it completely through. It will also give context to The Man of Mode, next on my reading list after finishing Tis Pity She's a Whore. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You haven't read The Man of Mode, Gan? I think you'll really like it. I feel it's like the perfect play for you. It's as funny as all getout. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm quite excited about it. After Tis Pity, I need something a bit lighter. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I second that. Man of Mode is fantastic, and so is Love for Love. Really fun parts for an actor and great jokes. (I'm only at the computer for a few minutes, but the shocked FAR fanatics on the talk page and the griping piping voices deserved a swatting.) Geogre 21:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alkalada

Alkalada is begging me to be unblocked and promising good behavior. I'd like to give him a chance. Any objections? Fred Bauder 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Who...? Oh, I see. He's a very young editor but with a pretty bad record of POV-pushing and puppeteering and intransigence. This time he has apparently done exactly what I asked[3] [4], that's great. I hope he's turning over a new leaf. Feel free to unblock. I also suggest the harmless indulgence of asking him which identity he likes best, unblock that one, and exhort him to stick to it. Tell him I'll know if he creates any more socks. (I will, as his style is unmistakable.) Bishonen | talk 20:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
Thank you, unblocking Alkalada (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Fred Bauder 00:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Hahahihihoho, using the account Alkalada, is back to his old ways and hasn't changed his ways at all, so I've requested that Alkalada be blocked at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets —KingIvan 08:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, I have put sources on most of the things I have changed like the demographics of Bosnia and like the names of cities in Northern Bosnia. And if somebody is BORN IN BOSNIA, THEN HE IS AUTOMATICALLY A BOSNIAN, it doesnt matter wheather he is a croat, serb or bosniaks.

How can somebody bor in Bosnia be Croatian? Alkalada 11:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you continue like this then I will report you for vandalism. Alkalada 11:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okey, this is enough.

Bishonen, and all other moderators, I am hearby reporting user Ivan Kricancic for repeted vandalism. This user has not put a single source on his edits and continued his vandalims without any reference to source. He is just taking away articles where he wants and when he wants.

Because of that, I report him now for constantly vandalism. Alkalada 11:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The only one vandalizing and violating Wikipedia policies is YOU, User:Hahahihihoho. Please refrain from violating Wikiepdia policies.—KingIvan 11:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ehum... you are violating wikipedia policies when you TAKE AWAY SOURCED ARTICLES. Alkalada 14:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

With regard to reminding user's of policies like WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, there is never any harm in repeating them. The use of templates for all users, established or not, is not prohibited. I prefer them because it is my epxerience that in many situations they are preferable to users actually speaking their mind (like your comment about users leaving).

If you believe that the personal attack referenced is harmless then you will not mind me making the same comment with regard to your so-called advice: why are you so interested in me? Per WP:NPA you should comment on contributions and not contributors.

Posting a comment like "Yes, I do see that you announce your imminent departure, but that doesn't malke me think this advice redundant. Most people who make such announcements, in my experience, tend to retract them pretty soon." (diff) does not sound productive to me. It sounds like a challenge, which can deter users from returning. If that is your intent I find it utterly disgusting. I would advise you to please consider phrasing yourself differently in the future, or if that is not possible to refrain from commenting at all. Such comments are not helpful.

--Oden 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there speaks the wikilawyer! It's not prohibited. I explain to you what bad ideas it is to point to the three Troll Favorite Policies, and to use templates against established users; I enlighten you as to the massive consensus against such behaviour; and that's all you've got? (Well, except that you prefer templates because they're preferable, but that doesn't do a lot for the advancement of human knowledge, either.) It's "not prohibited" so I'm going to do it? Don't worry, I'm not going to waste any more of my time explaining stuff to you. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
Unbelievable: Templates are for use with null accounts and incommunicative users. Experienced administrators use them for IP accounts and nonce accounts, where there is every reason to believe that there is "no one" there or that the person there is absolutely committed to trolling. They are never appropriate for established users, ever. They are incommunicative, carry with them no explanation, and have no justification offered within them. They're billboards, not communication. It is disruptive and inappropriate to try to drive users away, even bad ones, as bad turns to good, but gone never turns that way. To say that there is a consensus against this use, Bishonen, is litotes. There is virtual unanimity about it. Geogre 02:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:Troll Favorite Policies should be an essay. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some updates

I'm not sure if you are following the discussion at User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's. I don't know what Ben is trying to do with that. So anyway just keeping you up-to-date. Btw thanks for the e-mail (I'm almost a week late) and good to see that you removed the leaving announcement from your page. Hope you stick around.--Certified.Gangsta 23:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm..and also an IP edited Isberg's userpage, [[5]]?? Is that you or can it be Guardian Tiger?--Certified.Gangsta 00:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following that discussion, Boney. I disengage, I go Zen, I take stuff off my watchlist. I advise you to do the same. The IP isn't me, I've no idea who it is. Bishonen | talk 01:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
Sure, thanks for the advise. The pages have been removed from my watchlist.--Certified.Gangsta 07:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bish, sorry to be a pain, but I'm going to ask you to have a look at User_talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's#User:Guardian_Tiger_Timeline. It's an annotated copy of a timeline Gangsta put together. Tiger and I have been discussing it and we don't believe that it demonstrates that Tiger has been abusive. (A sock, yes, but you and I could both be hung for that.) I'd like your feedback. I want to take this back to ANI and I'd very much like to have your support when I do. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked someone today and noticed that the edit summary for one of its edit read Jesus is coming, look busy! Look busy, I like that! El_C 13:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been curious to see how this has been turning out and I think you may find User_talk:BenAveling/RevolverOcelotX_allegations interesting. I couldn't quite understand why the editor was so emphatic in the blocked user's innocence. The page in summation attributes all the problems the blocked user has had to differences with only me and Certified Gangsta. I think someone's altruistic tendancies might be creating a cognitive bias that is starting to skew the obvious facts in reality here. The blocked editor has had problems with many other editors on Wikipedia, me and CG are the only ones (and you) who tried to do anything about it. Enjoy your day. ShuckyDucky 19:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open up

I'm with the Dawg! El_C 01:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[Fondly.] I never understand a word you say, honey! Bishonen | talk 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] I saw the logs

I now understand why you are angry. --Kim Bruning 04:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marilyn Majeski and the Grove Street Playhouse

Yeah, trivial, but it's the principle of the thing.

Reader's Digest version: last year, someone created an article about a minor playhouse in NYC called the Grove Street Playhouse. That someone -- MissMajesty (talk • contribs) -- seemed to be Marilyn Majeski, its owner, since the article seemd solely done to promote the importance of Majeski -- especially after the playhouse and the bio both went up for AFD. Angry messages, talk page spamming, an ongoing fight with User:NYTheaterHistorian (whom she apparently knows IRL), massive sockpuppetry, etc. Eventually, the drama ends, and MM goes away.

A few months ago, I noticed that a brand-new user had edited one of my Talk Page archives (it being on my watchlist), removing the reference to "Grove Street Playhouse" from a message. So I followed backwards from there, and discovered that for the last several months before, a series of one-off accounts had been expunging the record from various pages about what had happened. Nothing as crude as blanking entire pages, but still. The one-offs and older sockpuppets include:

I reversed the whitewashing. The puppeteer has become angry. That's it in a nutshell. --Calton | Talk 01:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I left off a lot of details: the ongoing fight with User:NYTheaterHistorian (whom she apparently knows IRL) covers a multitude of sins and would be worth a few hundred more words, if I could actually sort out what it was about, which I do not want to. Oy. --Calton | Talk 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your note on my talk page. Julie123 18:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the day

Hi Bishonen; I was actually working on this, but hadn't learned anything useful. I got the pic to display by copy-and-pasting the body of the template, {{POTD/{{{date|{{#time:Y-m-d}}}}}|condensed}}, but I don't really know what I'm doing. Anyway, it it a cool picture. Tom Harrison Talk 14:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A vs An

Do we refer to a hypothesis or an hypothesis - I think it might be an. We usually put an an in front of words beginning with vowels eg. an irritation but I've got it in my head that h sometimes has a peculiar status eg. an honourable peace. Is this just 1. a product of my confusion or 2. archaic usage or 3. quite correct?......--Mcginnly | Natter 16:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't think of asking me? I'm tempted not to answer, but the pedantic urge is too strong. /H/ is not a consonant. It is an aspirant. (I.e. it is a breath mark. It tells us to blow out with a hhhhhhhhhh.) Therefore, traditionally, we treat words beginning with /h/ as beginning with whatever letter comes next, which is usually a vowel. However, many people now think it sounds weird and therefore will use "a." Basically, I say "an hypothesis" and "an history," but some people will think these are wrong. It's considered a little fussy to use the 'an', but it's still correct. (Sorry, Bish, but I had to.) Geogre 16:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, I did think of asking you, but as my first point of call for dumb questions I thought I'd spread the burden out a bit.....Thanks very much for the confirmation. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree in part, though: At least in the Eastern U.S., any word beginning with a sounded "h" takes "a". Newyorkbrad 17:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I say and write a hypothesis and a history, but an hour and an heir. See also A, an#Discrimination between a and an. —Mets501 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, we're right back in the old descriptive vs. proscriptive argument. The rule is that /h/ is not a consonant. The practice and therefore growing usage is to treat it as "not a vowel and therefore as a consonant." Ultimately, the reason the rule came into force in the first place as a disambiguation, as it were. English doesn't like blending vowels between words, and so we use the nasal to provide a stop. Thus, we had "thy glory" vs. "thine arm," as well as "my bird" vs. "mine emu." The rule is exactly the same, and you're still actually correct to put the /n/, but the language is losing those rules (by analogy to the loss of nasal pronouns? as part of the same shift?), so it's debatable whether "a history" is wrong or not. Geogre 19:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"proscriptive" (thou shalt not) or "prescriptive" (thou shalt)? Per Fowler, on split infinitives, there are those who neither know nor care; those who do not know but care very much; those who know and condemn; those who know and approve; and those who know and distinguish. Let us all hope for the sensibility to fall into the last camp. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. Both are acceptable. Raul654 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • If we wanted to be linguists, we'd figger out what it is about some vowel lengths that, when aspirated, need no stops. I.e. "hy" is longer and heavier than "how" or "hoi," and therefore "hypothesis" and "hyperbole" and "hyperborean" all feel like they need no nasal stop before them, where as "howl" feels like it does. If the u is really yu ("hubris"), we feel like it's heavy, too. However, I traded in my linguist badge for a crossing guard sash years ago, so I'm not qualified by temperament or training. Geogre 20:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

'ard 'earted 'ercules 'it his 'orse over its 'ed with an 'ammer cause it to give an 'orrible 'owl. So for a cockney everyfink beginnin wiv H 'as an an. ie. maybe your suggestion re. vowel lengths is only going to work with received pronunciation --Mcginnly | Natter 22:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm at all qualified to judge this, but the obvious rule seems to be that "a" goes with "h" that is pronounced ("hhhh"), and "an" goes with "h" that is silent. An honour, an hour, a hotel, a horror. Counterexamples, please? Kosebamse 08:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To tell the truth, each of those. The thing is that we're at the point of discarding an ancient rule in English. Some people, like me, preserve it in written English (but not in spoken English) because I regard it as best to be conservative in writing. (In other words, some hypercorrectives will be offended if "an" isn't used, so I avoid being "wrong" to them. Additionally, I cannot be sure how the reader is going to pronounce the /h/. As Mcginnly's cockneys demonstrate, English speakers around the world treat the aspiration differently, so some will have more or less of a vocal initial sound, so "an" does them some service, while it just looks fussbudget to the people who aspirate heavily.) Since we've lost our /n/ speedbump between our pronouns, keeping it with /h/ may be gone already. Note that a good many people in speech will say "a" and anything following. The nasal is getting lost altogether. In 50-100 years, it seems like there will be no "an" at all. So, does one make a stand and fight for the /n/, or does one not? I do, but humbly. Geogre 13:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a strong distinction between British usage and North American usage (I have no idea about Commonwealth usage apart from Canada). In North America it is extremely rare to see "an" before a voiced "h". This has been the case for many years: I remember the issue coming up on an episode of M*A*S*H when upper class Bostonian, Charles Winchester, was revealed as an absurdly pretentious oaf for saying "an harmonica"...; that was in the mid-1970s. A further wrinkle is that of words like "homage" that may be pronounced with either a voiced or an unvoiced "h"; I've seen examples in Canadian and US texts of both "an homage" (which I would srite and say) and "a homage". Pinkville 14:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
With nothing better to do, I was mulling this over at the weekend and found another irregularity:- I would refer to a Royal air force engineer, but an R.A.F. engineer. - using the letter R, requiring the almost vowel-like aaar' sound, also seems to require an an. It also works for the sounded letters F (eff) L (el) M, N, S, X. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Never use "a historical" (sounds like "ahistorical"); always use A History of. El_C 10:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, it sounds like "a hysterical". Always use "A hysteria of", as in "The Oxford Hysteria of English Poetry." Bishonen | talk 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
"Next came Pope and Dryden/ So I went underground./ Don't mess with the Mafia." Geogre 11:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alkalada

You may be interested in the discussion about Alkalada on at User talk:Fred Bauder.--Isotope23 15:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] My email

Please note I have yet another new email address, the old one crashed along with the computer, so I've bought a new computer, it has a shiny curved screen to help my eyes and a key board shaped like a desert island, with keys that do amazing things - I do wish you coulds see it, I feel like I'm running a country sitting at it - I think I'll buy a new chair now to complete the image, one of those that massage while one types. I wish I had a big office with a huge window and balcony that looked out over Sydney Harbour (I bet Tony1 has one of those)or a penthouse looking over Central Park (like BoG) perhaps it would be cheaper just to have a new screen saver. I'll just have to look out of my very small window and wave at ALoan over the street; anyhow my point is if you ever need to contact me, you can through wiki-email. Love Giano 09:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

/me waves back. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure what you mean

But I'd be more than happy to discuss it on your or my talk page. - Taxman Talk 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, I'm already responding to mackensen... maybe some other time. Check your e-mail, please. That may make the difference between the center and the margin more clear. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Reading some further of your posts... I'm not just disappointed, I'm amazed that you keep it up about Giano "engaging in behavior as bad or worse than those you are pointing the finger at", while at the same time acknowledging that you don't know what the behavior of "those" was--and at the same time dismissing any need for my attempt to give you a sense of it. None of it of interest, then? Not my suggestion that people who actually consult the records come away muttering "I had no idea"? No concern with Kim Bruning's post above? Just Giano's "incivil" (pah!), so it's six of one and half a dozen of the other? Well, I'm past pretending to be sorry to have wasted your time; I don't think I took up a lot of it; I'm sorry to have wasted my own. I regret having expected to be read with interest. Forget it. I'm a slow writer, and I don't have any more time to spend in your "I know what they did/I don't know what they did" hamster wheel. Feel free to ignore my e-mail too. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
And accountable behavior in a transparent medium on Wikipedia (where it can be quoted ad nauseum) vs. unaccountable behavior in a "you post it and I'll ban you" medium like IRC cannot be "equivalent" from the start. And three vs. one and one vs. three isn't equivalent, either. And editor vs. admins and admins vs. editor isn't equivalent. And "tell us to stop on this IRC channel you are supposed to be entitled to, and we'll threaten you" isn't the same as "Oh, go away from my talk page, you pissant," either. No, I don't think any disinterested and rational person could see them as equivalent. Geogre 11:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LOL

Nice one. Me harassing him. Hilarious. --KonstableSock 04:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your question

His Serene Highness, the Grand Duke of Giano, considers the lily.
His Serene Highness, the Grand Duke of Giano, considers the lily.

Further to your question yesterday, if you look at my exiting new page and follow the external link the lady you thougt was Mrs G, is in fact the Queen of Italy, an easy mistake! Giano 09:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Sorry about the "Mrs", you know what an ignoramus I am in these matters! Bishonen | talk 12:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm sure "we" shall find it within "ourselves" to forgive you faux pas! Giano 12:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks very much for helping a fused and befuddled brain the other day (on Oriel College), I wish I had been in a brighter mood after my twelve hours ordeal work, but I was too keen on getting it done. Thanks.--Alf melmac 11:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no, thank YOU for insightful !vote here! Bishzilla | grrrr! 19:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] If you're inclined, I'm declined

I unblocked user:Mcginnly after David Gerrard blocked him. My reasoning for such is on WP:AN/I#Sockpuppet block of Mcginnly. I have to be away, now. If you're not interested, it's fine. The user set up the sock to pursue an RFC on how much minority point of view would be necessary in the Taj Mahal article, which is going to get worked up for serious review. Given that there are some minority points of view who feel that their nationalities and religious identities are invested in denying that the Taj was created for anything other than Hindu purposes, the matter is hot. I am surprised that David Gerrard, who is no stranger to hot topics, didn't investigate. Geogre 12:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh you are never around when you are wanted! Can someone (ALoan) spring the unfortunate McGinnly from prison as he is stll blocked inspite of being unblocked by Geogre ages ago [6] Giano 13:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It's resolved - many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a relief, although I still don't know how to unblock properly, it seems. I'm such a n00b at the blocking stuff, and, really, why else would anyone be an administrator, as one person asked. Geogre 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You did it properly, Geogre, but the redoubtable Autoblocker bit Mcginnly. To undo any autoblocks along with your standard unblocking, go here—very useful URL to keep handy somewhere—and fill in the data you have. One or two facts are enough, for instance the name of the blocker and the original blockee. Click on Submit query, and see a list. The original block should be on it. Click on that block's "Autoblock ID" link, and a self-explanatory page for unblocking will appear.
Mynde you, even if you do all that from the start, the Autoblocker may bite again later—not going into the "why", which is fuzzy to me anyway—and need to be released again. And guess what, every technical problem is ten times worse if you use AOL. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
My only regret is that I was unable to vote in the Bishzilla RFA last night. It cheered me immensely to see such a laudible candidate proferred to the community's consideration. Such a shame it crashed and burned.rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRAAAAGH! rage on zilla--Mcginnly | Natter 00:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the closure, per WP:IAR, informal !votes are still being cheerfully accepted in this instance. :) Newyorkbrad 01:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL! That is a classic RfA - "Oops. Zilla learning to hug little users more gently" - quick! someone add it to WP:BJAODN. Carcharoth 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:Bishzilla for live coverage of these incidents as they happened. Newyorkbrad 01:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that this is already on BJAODN: here. Carcharoth 01:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity? Border-line case?

I've had my eyes on something for a while, that I don't know really what to do with. It was a very obvious case of vanity writing. Two articles got deleted. Now one of the articles is recreated, and it looks much better. Whether or not the subject is notable enough for an article, I really can't say.

On svwiki, I would take it to SFFR (AfD). However, the AfD's that got the two articles in question deleted had like four people saying anything on the subject; I have difficulties in believing this is a good way of dealing with it. I am not sure if one should take actions to get the stuff deleted or not. In a way, there are things more important to take care of. OTOH, my knee jerk reaction from the clear vanity start is to remove the group of articles ASAP. I wrote some kind of recollection of it all on User:Habj/green burial stuff; you can take a look if you like (but I don't expect you to). // habj 12:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[/Bishzilla stares at mysterious message, starts to get crosseyed with bootless concentration.] Resident deletionist? Take a look, please? Bishzilla | grrrr! 17:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
I weighed in, there. Basically, my view is that we treat individual company presidents if they make a splash as individuals. We treat individual practitioners of an industry when they are far ahead, first, or biggest. Otherwise, we cover the industry, not some dude at some company doing it. Well written or poorly written articles are irrelevant, if the subject is inappropriate, because Wikipedia articles are page rank boosts, and therefore articles are money. Geogre 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two notes

Hi Bishonen. First of all, I'd like to offer my sympathies that Bishzilla didn't pass rfa; she would've gotten my support. Second, in response to your comment on requests for arbitration, I think it was The Land who unblocked Giano. Cheers, Picaroon 03:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right! I still think there were more admins there, though, jockeying with The Land for first place. And El C (one of Carnildo's original three blockees) later did of those clever one-second "that block reason wasn't true" blocks of Giano. As for the uppity young monster, I think we all had a very narrow escape there. Bishonen | talk 09:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
What you say! Bishzilla | grrrr! 09:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

My recollection is that there were three admins who undid the block within minutes — The Land, Geni, and Worldtraveller. I can't recall the order, though. You can see by checking the two other block logs, which have not been erased, and I'm pretty sure that I noticed before that it was the same three admins who unblocked all three blockees. Musical Linguist 14:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's sad but I can't remeber for sure who got their first either, I know I was very grateful to all three - god what a wiki-life changing moment that was! Giano 14:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
See here for the names of the unblockers. I believe The Land was first. Newyorkbrad 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well if I had had half a brain I would have turned and walked away from this site there and then. Giano 15:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Nah. That whole dispute, while ridiculous, is far removed from what we are accomplishing here. Newyorkbrad 15:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
what makes you so sure? Giano 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
What exactly are "we accomplishing here" Giano 15:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, each of us must look within him or herself to answer that question. From my vantage point, the answer is supposed to be "writing an encyclopedia, educating others and ourselves, and, at the same time, having some fun and interacting with some interesting people." At the moment I can still say that that's my answer. But I can understand if it is no longer yours. Newyorkbrad 15:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Newyorkbrad about this. I discuss how I did this on my blog (an admittedly embarassing plug), and as a result my Wikistress was much reduced. Now if I could only deal with the other stress in my life . . . -- llywrch 21:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Dead right it is not my conviction, but now having seen what goes on at the higher level of the administration I cannot turn my back on it, rather like a civil rights lawyer returning to fight minor tax avoidance or royalties in the pop music industry Giano 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the support

here... much appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recourse in the face of multiple serial bad edits?

Hi Bishonen,

A few days you visited Transcendental Meditation to disabuse me of the notion that 3RR did not apply to multiple serial bad edits that could not be considered to be "vandalism."

A new editor, BabyDweezil, has shown up recently on the "cult" pages and has been making multiple serial edits in violation of guidelines on four or five articles. Here is a recent example. He is starting to do this faster then we can revert it without 3RR'ing.

What recourse do we have? DR seems to be too slow, the articles could be in tatters by then. Thanks. Tanaats 02:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note for the user to stop making far-reaching changes against consensus, and will keep an eye on what happens. It's really late at night where I am, so I haven't done much research yet. Please don't keep reverting, especially not to the point where you bump up against the 3RR. I don't think there's any real hurry—I know one feels that articles are being destroyed when something like this happens, but it's all still there in the history. The main thing is to make the user aware of policy in the matter of consensus, talkpage discussions, and unilateral changes, and persuade them to abide by it. I can see that the other editors have been arguing with BabyDweezil on Talk, which is exactly the right thing to do. The next step is also exactly what you did: contact an admin. We'll have to see if further steps turn out to be needed; I hope not. Bishonen | talk 02:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
A distorted account by Tanaats--that was the only large deletion i made, (not "a recent example"), i've explained all my edits, and have been thanked more than once for removing some flagrant un-Wiki material inserted over time by the very POV pushing bloc of editors who are now complaining. The claim that Ive made "multiple serial edits in violation of guidelines on four or five articles" is Tanaats opinion at best and an exaggerated fabrication at worst (and its such displays of drama substituting for simple facts which i have had to deal with of late in editing these articles). Please feel free to review my edits and the discussions. BabyDweezil 03:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Bishonen, yes the most recent example was the most egregious. Things are escalating. Previously I was dealing with multiple one-liners or one-paragraphers a day.
Thanks for the advice. I've taken my finger off of the revert button.
Thank you for taking an interest in this. Tanaats 04:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Help?

Can you try and sort this out Image:DSCN0455.JPG, I must have forgotten to name it properly - it looks like someone has uploaded a peice of furniture over the top of one of my buildings. Consequently Leighton Buzzard is now adorned with a cupboard instead of a bank, which is not advantagous to the page! Thanks Giano 11:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not one of Philip Johnson's? --Mcginnly | Natter 11:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I reloaded the image as Image:LBhighSt.jpg, in the hopes that a more specific filename will prevent this from happeneng again. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Killerbaby - No to you too McGinnly it is definitly a rather nasty looking 1950s style chest of drawers. Giano 12:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You stay out of Philip Johnson's drawers! Geogre 02:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Cibber

I asked a question on Colley's talk page a while back. Just curious if you might know anything. Cheers, dear! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry miss it. Bishonen now posted ignorant reply. Bishzilla | grrrr! 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
Watch it, monster, or you'll be even sorrier. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Thank you

Thank you for the beautiful water fall, Spumoni has always wanted to be a wading bird. I seem to have misplaced Cecilia though, I think she took herself off shopping to Milano when all the troubles broke out. Giano 08:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ApocalypticDestroyer's's appeal

Hi, Just letting you know that I have lodged an appeal at ANI on ApocalypticDestroyer's's behalf. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] What happens?

You get switched off, and probably held in contempt of court. Let me know when you want to impersonate a canary! Giano 21:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Switched off yourself! Bishonen | talk 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
On your own head be it! Giano 21:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Got an ethnic haircut in mind? Bishonen | talk 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
Tch...tch...tch......Giano 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a Sicilian who just got a haircut.

This, on the other hand, is the sort of haircut I generally associate with the user in question, but it's a Brooklyn haircut.

First Sicilian to land on the moon

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Albion and Albanius, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

[edit] Restoration literature

Restoration literature has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

-- mattb @ 2007-02-06T06:11Z

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear, I just popped over to see if you knew about poor Albion above (I seem to remember writing it for you one wet afternoon to fill in some red links on one of your pages) it now appears that even with Wetman's valued help we cannot write a proper page between us, and now poor old "Rest Lit". I'm trying my hardest to be good, kind and nice at the moment so I don't want to be the first to comment, perhaps if nodody comments it will all go away - I'm not very good with the ostrich technique either though - and all this smiling like jaws is starting to hurt my facial muscles. All very problematic, isn't it? Giano 08:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
PS: What I don't understand is surely it would be quicker to just clean a page up, than keep plastering these templates everywhere Giano 08:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, you need to wear a crocodile suit to clean up Albion, since you very kindly wrote it for Restoration spectacular, if you recollect. That may be the problem. I suppose I'll go see if the Copyedit Lite is warranted a little later. Inline cites for Restoration literature is a harder proposition, because Geogre don't want them, and decorating my drama section alone wouldn't be much use. I think I'll just wait for Geogrezilla to rear up out of the waves, I suggest you do the same. Mmmm, breakfast time. [/Bishzilla eats three templates and a bucket of inline citations. ] Bishzilla | grrrr! 09:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
I think the nomination is in bad faith. If we look, we will see the same fun faces making the same fun comments as ever. Explaining to such persons again why, again, their requirements are not the FA requirements is virtually useless, and the wider audience seems to have been driven away. What's worse is that there are "inline citations" in the article, but they're parenthetical reference, and I explained on the talk page to the article why there aren't more of them. To cite every citation that is internal to one of the blue linked articles would make for 100kb of references. Geogre 11:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Bad faith? Hardly; I haven't been involved in any of your previous discussions on this topic. It's just that FA standards as they are currently interpreted require a good amount of inline citations, which this article doesn't yet have. I think the article is fantastic, I'm just pointing out that it needs the citations to retain its FA badge. -- mattb @ 2007-02-06T16:31Z
Perhaps you'd like to point out the part of the policy that says this? Have you read the discussion on the talk page? --Mcginnly | Natter 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to admit, I have only just read the recent traffic on Wikipedia talk:Featured article review, and I am beginning the see the WP:POINT. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
My particular favourite was It's a fine article, though, and surely shouldn't be knocked for having its shirt buttons foppishly undone. Quite clearly, the buttons are all there. qp10qp 12:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC) --Mcginnly | Natter 17:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Cross purposes, I think - that was on Talk:Restoration literature. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have composed a poem that I think hits the right note on this one:

So much depends
upon

an adverbial
phrase,

marred by flame
wars:

citations, "where
appropriate"

I haven't yet decided on a dedicatee, but am leaning toward George.

Regarding whether the nomination was good faith, Matt has said it was, so let's assume it was. Marskell 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good faith or not, and I know nothing about English lit - I liked Enid Blyton as a child - and read Lady Chat as a spotty youth (vastly over-rated I never did find the very rudest bits) but, and I don't mean to be rude, but aren't poems supposed to rhyme? Giano 19:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Of course they are. But then they started teaching all this modernist rubbish. Marskell 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
For further information on modernist rubbish and the like, you may want to check out another un-footnoted FA, The Cantos and Objectivist poets. :-) *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh damn--no inline cites on The Cantos. Perhaps best not to mention it or people will get ideas.
To be serious about one thing: footnotes are a form of inline citation, not synonymous with inline citation. No one on FAR says "insufficient footnotes". All systems tend toward a norm, of course, and the little numbers are it with Wiki. But the Harvard style is arguably better with some of the Lit pieces that rely only on paper sources and is still perfectly acceptable. Marskell 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If anyone even thinks about nominating The Cantos (ever) then Wikipedia deserves to die slowly and horribly, most horribly - consumed by its own ignorance! Giano 19:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, perhaps it's a good faith nomination. Still, it seems like I, at least, am being called upon to deal death and destruction upon those I have already been on record as opposing. Basically, that article used its internal links for the most part. Let's put it this way (long version, be warned), I set out to write The Dunciad. I figured that I wanted an article on every one of the dunces. I used the DNB for the biographies. The DNB used the same sources that I've used in the past. Then there were all the works of literature, which I just read. So, then we get some really out of the way stuff, like Gondibert, which fairly no one in their right mind reads. I read about .25 of it, but the very beginning is a "preface" by Hobbes talking about how much he admires it. I was at one time reading up everything I could by D'Avenant, and one of his scrofulous sons. (I was doing that because I was researching Ombre, which I was doing for Rape of the Lock, and Charles Cotton wrote The Compleat Gamester, which I read and tried to decipher.) Anyway, so there is all of that. So, the article itself says, "D'Avenant tried the epic with Gondibert, which Hobbes praised." To what would I footnote? I already have a link to D'Avenant. I had woven in...somewhere... the "prefaces" and the debate over form. I think it was in Restoration poetry. At this date, I have to try to puzzle out and manufacture notes that would be both false and useless to satisfy people who admit that they don't know the subject? I suppose anyone could see why I'm not very eager. Geogre 01:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and here's a first, or at least a first in a while: I gave a civility warning to LuciferMorgan for the rather unpleasantly personal comments at FAR. It was one of those fragmentation grenade comments, and those can wake even me from my lethargy. Geogre 09:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I did one myself, requesting either diffs or withdrawal of the lies. Yours was fine, Geogre, but in general I'm pissed off with the vague gesturing at "let's just get along", "let's all not say unkind things". I went specific. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Mine was made before he made new ones. He should be blocked, since he went on after a warning to two attacks. One was aimed at you -- suggesting that you're Giano's puppet/and/or a bad administrator. Had I been able to sign in today, I'd have blocked him for that one. I was specific in referring to a specific edit of his, but it's clear that he's popping his cork entirely. My problem is, as you know, that I don't believe in blocking anyone for "personal attacks," but, given the way that the FAR is sidetracked, if not derailed into "What's bugging him," that's pretty disruptive. Everyone else has tried to address other matters, but he's going out of his way to disrupt the function of the page, so that's where I will block someone, only slowly. Geogre 02:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Paul corrected me. In fact, his last nasty was before my warning, so at least I won't have to start blocking established people. Geogre 11:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the revert

here: [7] could you email me what it said? I don't speak Danish (or Swedish, sources weren't cleare on which it was or exactly what it said... something about my mother maybe?)... I may well leave it there, if it's not totally outrageous, because I almost never revert things off my pages. But I really do appreciate it, even if I revert back. All the best. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha, Bishzilla wins, she's had a pool going on how long it would be before you asked...! That's Danish, I believe, or just possibly Norwegian. E-mail sent. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] User:BabyDweezil has begun violating your Ban...

  • Just a friendly heads up, it appears that User:BabyDweezil has begun to violate your ban on multiple pages, and continue to remove content from article mainpages, without achieving consensus on talkpages, whilst still giving highly inappropriate remarks in edit summaries... Might want to check it out. Yours, Smee 19:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
I would appreciate a review of my edits and a discussion which ones were inappropriate etc. In the meantime, Smee's incessant hounding of me and increasingly hostile behavior rather than discuss any of the changes I have made or respond to my reasoning is beginning to get annoying. BabyDweezil 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's a recent deletion. Tilman is only trying to restore material that BabyDweezil had deleted earlier without discussion. Tanaats 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have discussed the edit at length. The editors who keep restoring it have offered no evidence in favor of keeping this fringe, ad hominen attack on a scholar in a "criticism" section. I would appreciate if editors spent less time posting notices that I have been "banned" all over talk pages (for just one example, [here]) and focused on making improvements to the article, as I have. Thank you. BabyDweezil 16:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The Russian Orthodox Church is not "fringe", nor is Prof. Alexander Dvorkin, PhD. --Tilman 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
BabyDweezil, you are continuing with your practice of deleting well-sourced material without consensus. Tanaats 23:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've no intention of protecting yet another page for the sake of one combative editor; on the contrary, I'm unprotecting Cult apologist now. Please see [8]. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, my log shows 15 edits that were made by BabyDweezil on Cult apologist without consensus. Do I have to worry about 3RR if I start putting the material back in? Tanaats 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you do. BD was editing unconstructively, but that still wasn't vandalism, what he was doing. Please assume good faith and try to make plans for compromise when he returns. I still hope there'll be room for it. Bishonen | talk 09:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] My block

A look at the discussions show the other editors are obstinately refusing to discuss the edits, stonewalling, responding to requests for comments with abuse, and are being serially uncivil. You, Bishonen, are being entirely biased and supporting the most blatant form of simple-minded POV pushing on Wikipedia by a handful of biased editors who resort to acting like crybabies and tattletales and offering exaggerated complaints, fabrications and outright lies rather than respond to requests to civilly and intelligently discuss articles. c'est la vie, see ya in a day or so. BabyDweezil 23:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We will start afresh when he returns today. Thanks. Tanaats 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TEH ZILLAS ARE BREEDING

I've moved the Bishzilla "RFA" here: User:Bishonen/Bishzilla RFA. For some reason it ended up listed on the main RFA page, probably because it shared the naming format of a legitimate RFA. Regardless, it was causing confusion, so it's best to be clear that it's a joke and name the page accordingly. --Cyde Weys 13:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishzilla is supposed to cause confusion. And panic. And massive destruction. --Ideogram 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the page was created by Bunchofgrapes, why wouldn't you move it to User:Bunchofgrapes/Bishzilla RFA or User:Bishzilla/Bishzilla RFA instead? Or perhaps its original title User:Bishzilla/Nomination. NoSeptember 13:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know, nor particularly care, who originally started it, as my only goal was to prevent the confusion that having it listed under RFA space was causing. If you have a better idea for a location you are more than welcome to move it as you see fit, just so long as it doesn't go back under Wikipedia: space again. --Cyde Weys 17:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
So, you didn't know who made it, didn't investigate it, didn't know where it should go, but went ahead anyway? And you're sounding resentful of someone asking you to investigate before you act? Well, "why else would someone want to be an admin?" Geogre 21:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. Someone who's username is obviously a pun, who so dislikes humour? Ben Aveling 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh hell, Christ! I had never realised it was a pun, why have I not seen that before....I have just seen it Cyde Weys - "Side Ways"...that's really very good..but why "side ways" Cyde? Giano 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh! - jump back in shock - Cyde! - double hop! I just came over here to see if anything intersting was happening - fancy seeing you here - have you joined - you'll have people talking about us - we can't go on meeting like this Cyde - but I do like a man with a pink signature ;-) Giano 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
A man said of someone, they "are not known for any extraordinary ebullitions of wit or mirth, and it is not prudent to try it upon them." Geogre 21:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If only you had said before. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this conversation has been so consciousness-raising. --Cyde Weys 21:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I quite like the Germans actually, I met one sitting next to me on a plane once - this is completely true - I promise - we were on our way to Geneva, and (as one does) he asked if I was on business, and I said - yes, and then being a well brought up person, I said "and yourself?" and he said he was going to see a specialist in Switzerland because he suffered from premature ejaculation - I opened my book and read it with fervour without looking up for three hours, but to this day I wonder was he joking? Opinions invited. Giano 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's a valuable reference point, Omid Djalili the Persian comedian has said, "I'm the only Iranian comedian... Don't laugh! That's three more than Germany!" Pinkville 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps he found you distracting? ;) The Rambling Man 22:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, he, too, was thinking of blocking, although of extraordinary ebullitions or mirth. The real question, however, is what the Expert in Geneva was like, and whether or not he's the Ceiling Cat vandal. Geogre 11:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything could possibly be more obnoxious than this section.

Except maybe stomping on Tokyo. --Ideogram 18:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG. Run away!! Run away!!! -- ALoan (Talk) 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help--an editor (Smee) is rampaging!! Eeek!

Kindly review the most recent edits by Smee, who is on a rather hostile rampage, blindly reverting edits by disfferent editors without explanations and with false claims of "vandalism. I tend not to want to "tattle" on editors, but this is ridiculous. BabyDweezil 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And please review the recent spate of edits by said complainant above, who is going around spreading vandalism, removing text as well as sourced citations from articles, without consensus or discussion of any kind on talk pages. Seems to be a pattern... Smee 04:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, here are some new edits by BD...

  • Deleted the same ELs that he had deleted previously [9].
  • His comment in response to my protest [10].
  • Deleted the statement "This was in contradiction with police reports that had discovered at Aum's main compound in March, of a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison."[11].
  • Another deletion [12].

* Deletion of an EL [13]. Oops, that was only a move. Tanaats 05:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

About Keith Henson (I'll get to the rest later): BabyDweezil, I hope you've noticed that I'm in no hurry to label editing "vandalism" as long as it can possibly be construed as good faith. But carpet-bombing the article with {{fact}} tags as in this edit, including (for god's sake) the basic summary in the introduction, is IMO nothing less than vandalism. Please tell me what exactly in the intro you consider unreferenced, for instance. You're disrupting Keith Henson and heading for another block. As for Smeelgova, I would still advise him aginst using the word "vandalism" in edit summaries. It's a good principle. Bishonen | talk 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Bishonen, have you read Keith Henson? Can yuo honestly tell me that that isn't perhaps the most extreme form of POV pushing, original research unsourced, overblown relative to importance personal essays masquerading as a biography on Wikipedia. It's so bad it's laughable, and some I'm vandalizing it by adding fact tags and removing pointless references that have nothing to do with, and source no claims in the article? BabyDweezil 08:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Duly noted, thank you I will take your advice under consideration. Here is some more evidence for you : DIFF Yours, Smee 06:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Re-deletion of "This was in contradiction with police reports that had discovered at Aum's main compound in March, of a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison."[14]. Tanaats 06:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Defense of his prior deletion of "This was in contradiction with..." (see above).[16]. He is correct that the first few words were OR'ish, but he should have edited it rather than delete it. His consistent argument for many of his deletions is that it is not his job to fix things. Tanaats 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm sorry

I'm sorry for what I said, and got the wrong end of the stick. I still don't see why you keep sticking up for Giano, as I've found him to be incredibly obnoxious to be honest, although I jumped the gun before he got the first punch in. This stems from the Palladian FAR, which I still don't feel should've been closed (but that's another story).

Anyway, as concerns your conduct as an admin which I got the wrong stick about... after the Palladian FAR, a few Wikipedians I don't speak to emailed me and said I'm best off steering clear of Giano and friends of his, and yourself was named. I'm not going to say what people emailed me, as they aired their views privately and I don't wish to lay the blame elsewhere as concerns what I said. Anyway, I browsed Giano's edit history, and there was some spat with a user called David something (Gerard possibly?) and another incident with Ideogram where you reported Ideogram's before - and well, thought, it must be correct then. And when I saw somewhere you'd unblocked Giano, I thought it must be true. I also figured that should someone annoy Giano, you'd get involved, and then they'd end up getting blocked. To be honest, I know admins can block people, but not much else. People are talking about IRC (Marskell tried explaining what it is a little, but I still haven't a clue what it is), de-sysopping (I don't know what this is, but I'm assuming it's where one would be stripped of their powers), RFA (??) and other things - I'm just a person who edits the odd article and hangs around at FAR, so I don't understand this language much. At the time, when I said what I said what I did I felt it to be true in my heart - I'd never knowingly say something false about a person, as I'm not that kind of person. I've since had time to consider what I said, and make more thorough inquiries into what I said. I feel really bad about the whole mess, and am extremely sorry for any offense or upset I may have caused you. If anyone questions your admin integrity in future based on this incident, I encourage you to email me and I'll back you up.

I'm extremely sorry the offer to accept an apology has expired, but I found the deluge of messages from various people (excluding yourself) on my page rather disturbing and frankly a little upsetting to be honest. It hurt, so my defense mechanism kicked in, and I'm sorry about that. I feel this is an issue between myself and you, and not all the other people who've left numerous messages on my page. While the situation is grave and rather serious, I don't feel they're helping the situation either. I'll admit that I'll never win a popularity contest on Wikipedia, but I thought other Wikipedians thought I was at least ok. It seems I'm not much liked though apparently, which I'm to mostly blame for really.

This isn't an attempt to lay the blame anywhere else, as I found your reply rather gracious under the circumstances. It took me by surprise really, as I'd found the incident a volatile situation from other quarters. It was commendable of you to keep level headed, and made me think twice of my previous judgment.

I wish for my apology to be seen as a sincere one, and not something that has been pressured out of me by the community. I'm not an insincere person believe it or not, and never have been. I don't wish to start now, but this apology is genuine. It comes from the bottom of my heart, and I hope you can accept it in that way. Anyway, I hope you take care, and really hope that you'll eventually find me to be a nice enough person, and not the one you may find me to be at present. Goodbye. LuciferMorgan 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology, Lucifer, though not your lack of value for the work Giano does for Wikipedia. Perhaps you should do your own research in that quarter, too, and not take everything you read in hostile e-mails for gospel. Please consider that with messages from people you don't know, you also don't know their motives. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • ....and so yet another Wikipedia editor bites the dust, having been drip fed poison. I visit FARC very seldom only when an article in which I have taken a long standing interest is deposited there. My sole encounters with Lucifer before the current review were on Palladian architecture's review (I wrote it - I have a right to be interested in it) [17] where Lucifer became more and more agitated and hostile in his comments. we now know why: [18] "a few Wikipedians I don't speak to emailed me and said I'm best off steering clear of Giano and friends" obviously was the cause of such comments out of the blue as this one [19] . The sad thing for whoever these mysterious people are who primed Lucifer is that he eventually went firing off at Bishonen who was the wrong target. Perhaps people like Sandy Georgia who make reproving comments like this [20] should confine themselves to addressing the root of the problem, which is those drop feeding the poison, rather than those seeking to establish, however belatedly, the truth. I hope eventually Lucifer feels able to return to the project, and when he does he is made welcome - I do though wonder how many other innocent editors minding their own business have their inboxes filled by strangers emailing unsolicited lies and venom about their own particular enemy of the day. Giano 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In the immortal words of Bill Hicks

Image:Donald saddam.jpg
Superbest friends, forever for a time!

I am available for children's parties, by the way. El_C 12:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Now there was a comedian, at least until he started the "Goatboy" nonsense. "The Gulf War is like a defense contractor's Christmas party. 'What does #44 do?' 'It says, here, that it melts them down and leaves only their fillings.' 'I got to see that.' <whoosh> <wait> 'Cool! What does #45 do?'" Geogre 13:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
We got the recipts! El_C 13:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't that a different comedian? "We know Iraq has WMD, because we've still got the receipts!" Geogre 14:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
No, see the bit where he immitates a US govt., saying: 'the Iraqi military has got powerful weapons' 'Well, how do you know?' 'We got the receipts.' El_C 14:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am blocked as Sockpuppet by 204.11.35.132

But the "log" does not mention it or tell me why. Is this a trick. I have no sockpuppets. Am I violating it now by writing you? Sincerely, Mattisse 14:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You've been blocked by an IP...? That would be funny, if it wasn't distressing to you. IP's can't block anybody. User:204.11.35.132 put a {{sockpuppeteer}} template on your userpage, that's all. (It's been reverted now.) The part I don't understand is the 3RR thing you mention in your mail—has the anon messaged you? I hope things have cleared up by now. In case they haven't, I've sent you a g-mail invite to chat, so we can figger out what's happening, if anything (my guess would be nothing). IRC would work, too. Don't worry, now. You obviously can edit—you edited this page—and there's no block in your log. You're not blocked. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Hate to butt in here, but don't you think it might be helpful to place a warning on the IP editor's talk page, since this was evidently a malicious action? - WeniWidiWiki 19:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I sort of don't feel like it—don't want to give the bastard a chuckle. I'm too sure that was a drive-by edit from a logged-out established user on a dynamic IP. This place depresses me sometimes. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Me too. However because of how long this particular run of harassment has been going, I think it's best to document the actions of the user in case it comes up again. - WeniWidiWiki 20:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with WiniWidiWiki. Sincerely, Mattisse 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tanaats

Hi. I notice that you've helped out User:Tanaats in the past. Would you be so kind as to leave this person a note explaining that I'm not a crazy person? I've bothered them while following up an OTRS complaint at International Cultic Studies Association. Jkelly 20:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jkelly, not only did you never identify yourself as an admin (although I knew it after you protected the page) but you never explained about the complaint. You only said that "someone complained", and that still before identifying yourself as an admin. It is not very compelling if just-another-editor says that "someone complained" as a reason for deleting well-sourced material.
Then you dropped that argument entirely, meaning to me that it wasn't a strong argument to begin with. You completely switched to the argument that for some reason we should not use the ICSA's own website as a reliable source for a list of who their staff was. The whole thing was incomprehensible to me.
Admittedly I have a short fuse about the unilateral deletion of well-sourced after the predations of an editor on Cult and Cult apologist. But I really do need a head slap and an explanation about how your conduct was completely proper. Then, as I said before, I will apologize profusely and walk away chastened. Tanaats 23:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did I screw up?

Hi Bishonen,

So did I screw up?

Thanks. Tanaats 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see also here. I have two admins telling me that Jkelly's actions were proper. I must be crazy. I really don't see why Jkelley's actions were any better than that editor that you've had to block twice. If you can help me to see where I'm going wrong here I'd much appreciate it. Thanks much. Tanaats 01:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've finally replied on ANI, Tanaats. Bishonen | talk 03:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thank you

My grateful thanks for your assistance with Jack Sheppard, which is now a featured article. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blast from the past

Bish, I was just browsing through some stuff from LONG AGO and found this. I thought you might get a kick out of it. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, nostalgia, Dante. For a while, I was in sole possession of CheeseDreams' password, how about that? I never dared use it, though, and it was burning a hole in my pocket, so I quickly passed it on to JRM, who changed it. He's in sole possession now—well, he's probably munged it, I expect. I didn't want to become an admin, indeed. I was enjoying the solicitations too much...! Happy days. :-D Bishonen | talk 19:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
Night Bishonen, Night Geogre, Night mcGinnly, Night Paul etc etc..Night Giacomo. Bishonen.
Night Bishonen, Night Geogre, Night mcGinnly, Night Paul etc etc..
Night Giacomo. Bishonen.


[edit] Battleship

Hello, hope things are well - long time no speak because I've .. well... not been around. Anyway, I happened upon you finding the OED definition of battleship here and mentioning that it wasn't quite complete. Any chance you could fill in any subtleties lose by your cut-and-paste from the other year? And do you know what the correct way to cite the OED is? Many thanks.... The Land 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, The! OMG, that's what you do when you let your hair down—read Geogre's archives? I'm afraid I can't get at the OED right now, because teh intarweb asplode. (Is it possible I hang around on IRC too much?) I mean, my uni proxy has been laid low by a virus. :-( I wonder if I can still see how to cite it, hmm... yes, check it out. Those are the instructions, but apparently you also get a full cite provided with each entry you look up. Hopefully I'll be able to do that in a few days' time. Do please remind me if I forget. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Indeed, I'm clearly bored and lonely ;) ... hope your internet connecito nhasn't got bird flu. Many thanks for your help. The Land 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions on New religious movement

Hi Bishonen,

May I please have your opinion on this activity on New religious movement?

  • Declaration of intention to unilaterally remove material without consensus.[21]
  • About 20 minutes later, the deletion was performed.[22]
  • New deletion of same material without consensus.[24]

Thanks. Tanaats 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Deletion of a sourced statement without consensus.[25] Tanaats 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Statement of reason for insisting on unilateral deletion.[26] Tanaats 01:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Tanaats: I'm really sorry, I've just been too busy, too many emergencies have been popping up, on-wiki and IRL. I've now asked an uninvolved admin to step up to the plate on this instead of me. You should be seeing or hearing from him round about 5 PM EST or so. Bishonen | talk 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Hey, no problem. This is turning into a long-term situation and patience is required. :) Thanks for your earlier participation and I look forward to hearing the opinions of the other admin. Tanaats 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the update

Hey Bish!! I know, haven't talk to you for so long. Apparently, David Levy is forcing me with a block to remove the joke banner. thoughts?--Certified.Gangsta 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I feel a little ridiculous warning you about 3RR vio, David, but are you aware that you've gone right up against the limit on Certified.gangsta's userpage? Please don't revert again. Bishonen | talk 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

The reversion of vandalism is exempt from the 3RR. —David Levy 03:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Right there behind you Bishonen... plus the improper block. (→Netscott) 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello there, Scott. David, you're mistaken about the application of that exemption. The reversion of something you've unilaterally and disputably decided you regard as vandalism is not exempt from the 3RR. ("Disputably", obviously,since it's being disputed all over ANI at this moment.) By no means. This is what is exempt according to the 3RR policy:
"Reverting simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking (this only applies to the most simple and obvious vandalism. For other vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)"
See how it doesn't fit? Italics in the original. Bishonen | talk 04:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Again, I don't understand why people are citing discussion that occurred after the fact as though it already had occurred. At that time, there was overwhelming consensus that these messages were harmful. So yes, I viewed the deliberate restoration of such a banner as something tantamount to simple and obvious vandalism. I'm sure that the user felt that his/her joke was funny and didn't seek to upset people, but someone adding nonsense to an article might feel the same way. The user was well aware of the fact that the banner's insertion was regarded as disruptive and barred via a guideline, and he/she chose to ignore these facts (as well as my warning, which he/she removed from his/her talk page).
Whether I was right or wrong, I honestly perceived this as a clear-cut case of deliberate disruption. —David Levy 09:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I honesty perceive this as a clear-cut abuse of administrative priviledges and deliberate userspace harassment.--Certified.Gangsta 09:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you look at the words of the 3RR policy, I don't see that they leave much room for deciding that something—a joke banner—quite different from the examples they give of simple and obvious vandalism is "something tantamount to simple and obvious vandalism". On the same principle, even if you feel you have such strong consensus for a recently introduced "rule" that it's safe to dismiss all pleas and arguments on the other side, it wouldn't have hurt you any to try to understand where they were coming from—to listen rather than dismiss out of hand, to engage rather than assume that anybody with different opinions had to be out to harm the encyclopedia. If you'd taken opposing arguments into account, I don't think it would have been that hard to figure out what kind of reaction an actual block was likely to get on ANI. I'm saying this because from the way you responded to me, I didn't get any kind of feeling of being heard or listened to.) Bishonen | talk 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
1. I don't believe that the mere use of the joke banner constituted anything tantamount to simple vandalism. I believe that the repeated deliberate guideline violations (mostly via edits with no summaries, some of which were labeled "minor") and removal of a warning message did.
2. Again, I didn't "dismiss all pleas and arguments on the other side." Almost all of them arose after the fact. I have listened to them and repeatedly apologized for acting in a manner met with controversy (which obviously wasn't my intent). —David Levy 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
On the matter in hand, looking at timestamps, it seems to me you had received a good deal of input by the time you reached my page—enough to give you pause before imperiously dismissing my 3RR concern. To introduce a note of doubt or self-reflexion, even. An acknowledgment of the possibility that I meant well and might have a point. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
I haven't dismissed your concerns. I simply disagree with you on this point. Not for a moment have I questioned your motives. —David Levy 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

I am having troubles with User:Piotrus on my talk page, with his insistence on keeping a warning - you stated in the past the this is not warranted. BTW, this user is up for a RfC presently. Thank you. Rarelibra 15:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've written a note to Piotrus. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

The user has failed to show me any diff that s/he has been warned about unsing obscenities in the future, so I feel my warning was current and correct. The next time that user uses obscenities we now have a ground for blocking (hopefully that will teach that person to behave in a civil manner instead). I don't care that much if s/he removes the warnings, it only reflects bad upon that person ability to deal with criticism. What I object to is blanking current debates, which makes it more difficult to continue meaningful discussion. However I consider the discussion closed (the user was warned, and failed to present any coherent argument in his/her defence).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As an admin, you are quite capable of doing the research as to being warned previously. All you seem to be doing is going on some kind of march to attempt to get me blocked. It won't work. You should be, instead, concentrating on the current RfC that you are the topic of for your various behaviours in the past (and present). Like the pot calling the kettle black. It wasn't a debate, mind you - it wasn't a blanking. It was acknowledgement without response, period. Next time use discretion before you go off on some tirade. Serious. Be very careful on your actions. Thank you. Rarelibra 18:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen - I don't mean to bother you. I really appreciate your assistance. The problem I have with User:Pmanderson is that he cannot remain respectful whenever he dislikes someone. If you look at this diff HERE, you'll see that he insinuates that I want to "lie to the reader". There was nowhere at all in my comments on this discussion a proposal to lie. In fact, my whole point was that we need to use the diatrics when using names (and redirect from non-diatric names) - a process that the workplace I am involved with does on a daily basis due to an international scope of work. I was also stating that a direct English translation of the name "Stanisław" is "Stanley" (like "Mark" from "Marek"). Yet user Pmanderson seems to be able to twist my words and attempt to slander me. This is what I wish to have stopped. I do not do the same with him, I expect the same respect in return. That is all. Rarelibra 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your banner

I'm going to start revert warring with you, and then I'm going to block you. Oh, maybe I'd better not. Bishzilla might eat me. Musical Linguist 23:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I keep her around for. And I hope you realize you could have been spending the time it took to block me improving the encyclopedia instead ? Bishonen | talk 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
Are you implying that blocking you wouldn't be improving the encyclopaedia? Musical Linguist 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Block weenie Bishonen, great improvement! Look, is Muzzy lady! Oh, Muzzy, Muzzy... ! Bishzilla | grrrr! 00:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

:-) Regards, Ben Aveling 06:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Nice banner, I'm stealing it.--Certified.Gangsta 09:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] You stage, get off the suck!

Boooo! This was a real nice, un-orange page once... ( I'm boycotting it forthwith! :( El_C 09:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)).
Don't think I won't do it! El_C 09:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh hunn--ee..! Bishonen | talk 09:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
You've even orange-ized my own words. The sheer tenacity, audacity, insolence, intransigence, et cetera! El_C 09:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I quite agree. Shouldn't El C be red not orange? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'd love one thanks!

Where do I sign up for the Swedish massage? (→Netscott) 17:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, on a slightly more serious note: would you take a look at this ANI post? Thanks. (→Netscott) 19:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note! Something useful did come out of all of that. I created Template:View right which is good to be able to go and just view a transcluded bit of a page. Click on the right and you'll see what I mean:
view
(→Netscott) 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bork bork bork

I'm glad to hear that there are Jansonnists, because I was afraid that they were Jansenists 150 years after the suppression. Geogre 11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Janssonists, yep. Followers of Eric Jansson of Hälsingland. 1,500 of 'em—more than many a prophet! My redlink for Jansson isn't the only one; check out Bishop Hill, Illinois, which has a good short History section. ALoan, you're interested in writing stubs about Swedish pietists, aren't you? Big following! Colorful guy! "After repeated brushes with the law and with outraged local opinion, Eric Jansson departed for America in 1846, condemning his homeland to eternal damnation." (H. A Barton, A Folk Divided, 16).
Bishonen | talk 12:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
I a guessing that you don't mean one of the three members of the Swedish cycling time trial team, who won the bronze medal in the at the 1928 Summer Olympics, do you? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
He did that too? Wow, versatile! Bishonen | talk 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
Ahem. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha, the link is blue! :-) I've owled it a little. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
Interesting chappie - his resurrection was clearly somewhat delayed, if he only popped up for the 1928 Olympics. Almost as interesting as Carlo Gatti. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The Oxon Dict. Christian Church doesn't register him, I'm afraid, so I'm powerless without going to the liberry to find more information. Speaking of people going off to Lethe's burbling stream, Bish has gone quiet lately. Geogre 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Lethe? Not at all, I was reading books. (By Virginia Woolf, yet. When I read books, I read books.) Er, so, did you look at the issues under "Deletions on New Religious Movements" above, and "Nonstop personal attacks??" below, like we talked about..? If they got overwhelmed by other concerns, don't worry. I've got time to deal with it now, and have warned the user. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
My wife, Mathra, and I are both afraid of Virginia Woolf. Not Woolf's books, but Woolf herself. Rocks in the pocket and all. Geogre and Mathra, we're called, and we just love to invite new people over for dinner. Geogre 12:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Alas, but my tangle with salmonella-infected peanut butter (first time in history), overwhelmed all else. Geogre 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Did anyone see this? There's a poll on IRC snuck in at the end. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Great. If "no IRC" pulls ahead, we'll hear how "polls are evil," and if "IRC is useful" pulls ahead, we'll hear how it's an integral part of Wikipedia. In other words, it's zero sum, no matter what. Geogre 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Houston do you read me?

"Stockholm, we've Had a Problem !". I think you are not penetrating the intergalactic airwaves, try and come through from the other side. Giano 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonstop personal attacks??

  1. Administrator's notice board, very inappropriate attacks on multiple editors
  2. Inappropriate response to warnings ABOUT personal attacks on his talk page

Thanks for your time. Smee 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't believe in blocking for personal attacks. But when they rise to disruption and to a general poisoning of the climate on talkpages, it becomes something else. Did you see me warn him on his page?[27] Meanwhile, I wish you'd stop planting templates on him. It's frowned on to use the warning templates in that way. If you feel a need to warn or reproach him (personally, I wouldn't bother any more, if I were you), then please use regular human speech. And try to chill out, Smee. It looks a lot like BabyD is trying to get you aggravated (remember, "assume good faith" doesn't mean "I have to pretend I'm stupid"). Don't give him the pleasure. Bishonen | talk 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
It would be nice if at least one admin would judge my edits on their merits, instead of incessant speculations that I'm seeking some sort of thrill or persecuting anyone. I challenge you or any admin to conclude that less than 95% of my edits are well grounded. I explain the reasons, yet I am faced with obstinate, POV-minded editors who act as a bloc to filibuster and delay even the simplest, most obvious improvements to the articles. BabyDweezil 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand my role in this context. I purposely don't get into your content disputes. If I did, I would cease to be the right person to adjudicate behavior—to "admin" the articles, as Tanaats puts it. Incidentally, for somebody who incessantly accuses Smeelgova of "stalking", it's a little curious how you pop up on every page where I allude to something you're interested in, and make some perky comment. [28] That's classic stalking. On another note, may I ask why you're so careless of the BabyDweezil account? From comments on your talk, you don't seem to care if it gets blocked, and you seem quite uninterested when I tell you that you're headed for a community ban or for arbitration.[29] Is BabyDweezil a disposable identity? Bishonen | talk 23:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
Maybe you could consider switching roles and take a shot at evaluating content (rather than, as you chose to do on the noticeboard, my mental health, since what appears as "behavior" cannot be judged with the least bit of accuracy in the absence of context. If you don't wish to, why not ask another admin to evaluate content? Seems lots of admins have opinions on behaviors, which they're all too happy to proffer at the drop of a hat, wam bam thank you mam. Looking down from WikiOlympus and pointing fingers is easy. As to my classic [30] stalking, since its obvious that some of you have taken it upon yourselves to not only complain incessantly about me, but to investimigate me (lotsa luck with that, and really, cc me the results) I like to keep informed about what's up if it concerns my account. Hate to be the last one to find out, y'know! BabyDweezil 00:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Apparently you haven't noticed that plenty of admins are criticizing your way of adding (or, more commonly, deleting) content? See, again, the ANI discussion. And ChrisO. I don't quite see what your interest is in having me do it too. I won't be so crass as to suggest you would like it if I stopped "adminning" the articles you care about. My rhetorical mention of "projection" amounts to "evaluating your mental health" and playing the wikishrink, does it? You know, of all your witticisms, that bit actually makes me smile. (Slightly. From Olympus.) Bishonen | talk 00:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
No content means content, not childish complaints about how one edits content. There has been zero ADULT discussion on actual content, rather than the rules ofthe playground. And as I pointed out, ChrisO has a HUUUUUGE (big even) conflict of interest on Scientology related articles. It's like having Karl Rove jump in and admin the Dick Cheney article. BabyDweezil 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formulating joke "new message" guidelines

Hello Bishonen, I invite you to join the discussion on crafting initial guidelines for the joke "new message" banners. Thanks. (→Netscott) 19:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What should we do

Hi,

I'm gathering proofs against User:Patchouli.User:Sa.vakilian/AFC1 How can we banned him forever?--Sa.vakilian 05:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi.The thing to do in my opinion is propose a community ban on WP:ANI. (Compare my recent post there.) Link prominently to the previous thread and the reactions that people registered there. Give the new post a heading that clearly states what it's about, and that makes it easy to notice for people who have an interest in the user—say "Community ban proposed against Patchouli" or something like that. See, LittleDan already said he thought a ban was appropriate, and I actually proposed a community ban, but the heading didn't say anything about a ban, so probably few people noticed it. You need to make your post easy to read and the points you make easy to grasp. Your evidence is good, but frankly, you have too much of it! (It'll be very useful if this is taken to arbitration, as seems pretty likely.) Only use the best of your links, and explain what you think they prove. Mention that LittleDan and others already suggested a ban. Me, I was just talking—I don't have any experience of the user—but LittleDan is important, so you might want to ask him to post his views directly after your proposal. Preferably a little more fully than he did before.
Advice for getting people interested in the issue:
  • Be fair, mention if the user has some good points, or if there are any excuses for the way he behaves. Make it clear what you're proposing, but ask the readers for input and their views, rather than say "You have to ban him."
  • Be brief. Agha Nader's original post in the previous thread is a good length, and is a good pattern for you altogether (except the header, which is unhelpful), with striking examples. Yours can be shorter, since you have a recent discussion to refer to.
  • Don't talk about the various policies he's breaking. Administrators know what these policies are, and listing them only sounds formalistic. Instead go directly to what he's specifically done, and the amount of problems he causes.
Who should propose it? Absolutely not me, I'm ignorant. Not somebody who has edit warred a lot with Patchouli, or is any kind of extremist on the opposite side from him. Somebody knowledgeable. It sounds (from your evidence collection) like you would be a good person. So would Agha Nader, or LittleDan. It's not really important, the information and the way it's presented matters more than who it is. Finally, if there's not consensus for a community ban, I advise you to first have somebody previously uninvolved make a good-faith effort to reach out to the user, and then (assuming that fails, as seems only too likely) go directly to requesting arbitration. From the links already posted, I don't see the sense in wearing out everybody with formal mediation and/or an RFC which would only turn into a flameout anyway. Requesting arbitration isn't hard. Good luck, Bishonen | talk 13:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
What's your idea about making an entry in Wikipedia:Community noticeboard and redirect it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Can I put massages on talk page of other wikipedians who know Patchuli to come there and write their idea or it's WP:CANVASSING.--Sa.vakilian 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical analysis via bulldozer and cow catcher

I had to make a few changes to Venice Preserv'd. Because I don't "OWN" articles, I've been very laid back about things. It seems that someone wrote a paper on the play and had to insert its conclusions. I can so sense someone having a class read it with New Criticism and a sheaf of feminist perspectives. Anyway, if you look at the diff between my last and the previous version, you can see the stuff I cut. If there are legitimate points that I'm chopping off that can be made more appropriately, please feel free to put them in in a better way.

For my part, I'm not going to allow the idea that this is a misogynistic play to stand. My own view is that all the principals are in an ethical bind. None of these survive, because our society has changed to get rid of things like "honor," but ... oh, just see the diff. Geogre 11:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belated thanks

Hej Bish - just wanted to say a very belated thanks for this. Hope you didn't feel too deceived that the anon was me, editing incognito. And thanks for your note on my talk page the other day as well. Hope you've been well! Worldtraveller 14:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I'd forgotten about that, World. Not deceived at all, it was a good thing to do. Admins should do the Harun al-Rashid/Günter Walraff/anon IP routine more often. Good heavens, Walraff is a redlink! I can't believe it. OK, make that the Barbara Ehrenreich routine. I was sorry to be such a lone voice on ANI this time round. :-( I'm as baffled as you are at the idea of calling criticism of admin actions a personal attack. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
Suggest to try Günther Wallraff, if it might please you, Most Noble Born Bishonen. Humbly, Swedophile 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Wow, a resurrection from 2004? Innaresting. I like the way you talk, Swedophile... very courteous, not to say courtly... hmmm, how about addressing me as "My Tallest", though ? I rather fancy that. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] User:WackadooXanadu

Could you please remove the reference of me "hating [his] guts" on his userpage. I removed it once because I took it as an insult for someone to judge my feeling towards them, which are not true by the way. Thanks! — Moe 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. I don't even care about the thread above that because it's my exact suspicions, but to make false claims is another. — Moe 01:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Gone. Now how about that Swedish massage? Bishonen | talk 01:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
LOL, did you get that massage, last chance from my talk page whenever I had it? I guess to be original you had to make it Swedish, huh? ;) — Moe 01:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a trap, don't fall for it. You get squished instead. Its like a horror movie. Its like... dead zombie chickens marching across your userpage! KillerChihuahua?!? 01:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe you *click for massage* ...Ahh! Should have listened to the Killer Chihuahua :/ — Moe 01:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Some idiot just blocked me

Avenge me, boys. AVENGE MEEE!! (I'm still boycotting this page, btw. This is just inhumanitarian aid) El_C 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've blocked the jerk! Bishonen | talk 03:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
I deserved that. El_C 04:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Admins get to have all the fun. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
No, no, you can be blocked, too! Bishonen | talk 12:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Community ban

Can I put massages on talk page of other wikipedians who know Patchuli to come there and write their idea or it's WP:CANVASSING.--Sa.vakilian 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure it out, please give me a minute and I'll respond! Bishonen | talk 04:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
OK, I'm still not sure. You'd have to make sure it's a limited number of people—absolutely not more than, say, 5—7 people—and an extremely neutral message. Avoid any hint of what you'd want or expect them to say, just ask them in a very neutral way for input. The only point I feel doubt about is that it's supposed to be important to write to both people who agree with you and people who agree with your adversary. So, if Patchouli has any supporters, or people neutral on the issues, it's extremely important that you include those people. But if he doesn't, I'm honestly not sure what would be deemed acceptable. In my own opinion, though, it would hardly be reasonable to prevent you from messaging people for input in such a case. Go for it. I think it's ok, so feel free to blame me if anybody complains. Bishonen | talk 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Personal attacks starting up again?

  1. DIFF 1
  2. DIFF 2
  3. obvious nonsense disruption, in violation of WP:POINT
  4. 2nd time disrupting Eisenhower article
  5. (Again)

These characterizations and assumptions about other editors is highly inappropriate. This follows a pattern of inappropriate behaviour that was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive202. Smee 22:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

LOL, and Smee isn't stalking me?? BabyDweezil 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
PLEASE STOP with your violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. This has been dealt with ad nauseam already. Smee 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
Relax, man. It's annoying enough that you follow me around undoing my edits. The fact that you log and monitor all my edits and constantly "report" me, with bogus accusations of personal attacks, disruptions, "inappropriateness" the like and post my "record" everywhere you can is really, really creepy. I mean, really. BabyDweezil 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the DIFFS above speak for themselves. Your behaviour, (in addition to the very language you are using now) is inappropriate and offensive, and a disruption to Wikipedia. Many other editors and Admins have stated as such. Smee 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Smee, please try not to rise to every bait. BabyD, please don't use words like "vindictive", and don't tell people how they "feel".[31] You are not in their heads, don't discuss how they feel. Discuss their edits, not their motives. This is the essence of the WP:NPA policy. Come on, you're always citing policy, I'm sure you know this. Just stop it. Meanwhile, since neither my wimpy reproaches nor previous ANI discussions nor shorter blocks seem to have made much impression (those edits to Dwight D. Eisenhower and L. Ron Hubbard mentioned above are truly ridiculous), I'm on my way to WP:ANI to propose a month's block. Feel free to weigh in, both of you. Bishonen | talk 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cough, splutter

See here. Musical Linguist 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Returning a favor

Since you helped me out, I noticed this List of Danish Americans while doing my usual "random article" surfing. I had seen the thing in your sandbox, and the first paragraph of this seemed to tie in, indirectly. Are other Scandinavians "disappearing" as quickly? Was there something peculiar about Danes that Swedes wouldn't have shared? Would it have to do with Danish history and its subjugation? Utgard Loki 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a Danish.
Have a Danish.
Thanks! The others aren't disappearing at all, they're burgeoning! This professor writes about the cohesiveness of Swedish-Americans, and it seems the cultural activities of the third- or fourth-generation American Swedes are becoming more Swedish. More Swedish than mine, for sure. In Minnesota, they apparently revel in (fake) immemorial Swedish customs like Sankta Lucia, the kräftskiva, the going bork bork bork. All pretty much invented out of whole cloth in the late 19th century—customs the first-generation emigrants had never heard of. People are funny, aren't they? As for the Danes integrating better and disappearing more, I guess that's to do with less religious persecution in the Old Country, so a less embattled type of immigrant. Something like that. Have a Danish. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] If you could spare the time -

- would you mind glancing over my little essay? I would appreciate your opinion very much. Comments welcome at the talk page. Best regards (and my compliments to foo-zilla should you happen to meet him/her/it), Kosebamse 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Oooooh, Wikipedia will get you for saying that! Geogre 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bishonen diacritic

Hi. All good-natured fun on AN/I aside, is there any reason that you don't have the diacritic in "bishonen" on your user page? I was going to change it but then figured that it might be intentional for legacy compatibility? Later. --Justanother 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant as the primary spelling so it bypasses the redirect. --Justanother 03:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Lëgäcy cömpætæbility? Primäry? I don't understand what you're talking about, sorry. Please don't make changes to my userpage. I wasn't trying to be funny on ANI. If I had been, I would have mentioned your laughable 3RR repørt of Smëë. Bischånen 11:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
"In Ankh Morpork, we do not hold with any letters with dots over them that might fall over and cause accidental punctuation." -- or something like that. Geogre 12:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Lancre, I believe - "But Lancre people had never got the hang of accents and certainly didn't agree with trying to balance two dots on another letter, where they'd only roll off and cause unnecessary punctuation." (see Überwald). Ankh-Morpork people "considered that spelling was sort of an optional extra. They believed in it in the same way that they believed in punctuation; it didn't matter where you put it, so long as it was there."[32] -- ÄŁøάñ (τâĺж) 14:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not say "funny". I said "fun". I hope that you are having fun. That is kinda the whole idea here, isn't it? When you click on the wiki-link for "bishonen" on your user page, it goes to redirect and I was wondering if you would not like that changed. No big deal. Since when is it "laughable" to report an edit-warrior for 4RR after repeated warnings ( wanna see the warnings?) Nice ASCII work. --Justanother 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not ASCII work, it's the natural behavior of my not-so-anglophone keyboard. I just usually keep it on a short leash. It's laughable since the time you daintily picked out Smeelgova's limited reverts from the surrounding ocean of reverts by BabyD.[33] and reported Smeelgova. I especially liked your subsequent call on ANI for editors and admins to make a better effort to see that all are treated fairly. You must have had fun writing that. BTW, sorry you feel muzzled by me pointing out that you had written half the thread, posted eight times, and were boring readers silly. Those are just facts, you know. Not like saying I'm "railroading", for example. I wonder what my interest in getting BD blocked is supposed to be. When I say I wonder, I mean I'm wondering inside my head. It's not a request for more rhetoric. (OMG censorship again.) Bishonen | talk 14:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
OK, no rhetoric. You have your perceptions and your opinions and your motives and I have mine. At most times, I imagine, they probably and happily coincide (not to imply that you or I particularly care about that). Obviously, they do not here. I really was curious about the diacritic. Don't worry about the censorship on AN/I. I have already made my points and if there is something else I need to say you can rest assured that I will say it despite (what I take as) any veiled threats of sanction for "disrupting ANI". --Justanother 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor FYI

  • Since BD deleted my reply from his talk-page, which he has every right to do, here it is:
Per Bishonen's sage advice: Smee, please try not to rise to every bait. Therefore, I will not. Smee 21:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] A belated thank for your comments in the arbcom case Sathya Sai Baba 2

I am frustrated that the arbcom has not answered a request for clarification since Sept 2006. An unanswered question regarding extrnal linking in the case of Robert Priddy triggered an edit war that led to this second arbcom case. It seems that the arbcom prefers to ban contributors who ask difficult questions to them, instead of answering the questions. Andries 08:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In case you are interested User_talk:Charles_Matthews#Banning_an_editor_from_an_article_whose_edits_are_described_as_responsible. Andries 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Bishonen,

And I'm very pleased to meet you! - Sorry to beg some of your time, but I've come to you to ask for some advice. I have what i consider serious concerns about essjay's conduct, and am upset with the way my concerns are being handled.

Brief rundown is that essjay lied on his userpage for ages about his qualifications - claiming to be a tenured professor, and hold the following degrees;

  • Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.)
  • Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.)
  • Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.)
  • Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD)

I understand that some see this as no big deal (but it is a big deal to me). What i thought was far more serious was that he repeated these lies to the New Yorker, and allowed a story to be published [34] which I feel directly bolsters wiki's reputation based on his fictional qualifications. I'm really concerned that without recognising this behaviour as a mistake at some point this could do serious damage to wikipedia's reputation, essjay being such a high powered user - this level of dishonesty is just plain wrong.

He has justified what he refers to as disinformation here [35] - and basically repeated this justification when I raised it on his talk page here [36] - leaving aside the fact that I think essjay is needlessly mentioning stalking, police matters and harrasment (how could wiki suddenly be so safe now?), I don't feel that he's responded at all appropriately to the issues. He's made it clear now he doesn't want to talk about it... [37]

I don't like the idea of someone who thinks this is not important having so much power. As you can see, I've become quite involved in this issue - perhaps I see it as so serious because I'm up so close - if it's no big deal, then I should let it lie, but I feel sure there's a seed of something quite important. I've sent you an email too..... Purples 02:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Purples. I'll take a look and talk with some people and get back to you. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 13:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
I have my usual overly-complicated view, which I've e-mailed you, Bish. Geogre 15:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That's funny - I have a theory too Giano 15:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm on three sides of the fence. Geogre 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (Beat that!)
Oh Geogre - it is far better to tunnel underneath the fence - who knows what one finds when one starts digging! Giano 15:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (et tu)
On an entirely unrelated matter (and I mean that sincerely; this is not code or insinuation), I have created a new award on my talk page. Geogre 18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I'm feeling cold and shivery, very cold, we have a superstition in deepest Sicily, never let your name be carved on a stone before the appointed time. Oh hell it has my name - I can feel a sore throat coming on - you must all pray for my repose. Giano 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That headstone doesn't have your name on it, unless the "Giano Affair" was about Giano, which it wasn't. Everyone knows that. Geogre 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh but do they? Poor dear Jimbo is there too - I just don't like it - we are doomed. Giano 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pass the doilies, please

Hi. I can use a bit of advice here, please. Do you think that this bit by User:Antaeus Feldspar constitutes disruption or abuse of a noticeboard worth bringing up on AN/I. I really do not want to be "dainty" here (more on that in a sec). I have a pretty thick skin and am very used to being attacked on the Scientology Series talk pages. I really don't mind it much as it gives me the rare opportunity to crack extremely wise and that is not something I do in real life or in other areas here. Lately, though, this crap has been spilling over onto admin noticeboards. There was my dainty 5RR with Smee and Tanaats try there (which he, to his credit, had the good sense to remove after I asked him to), then Orsini and Anteaus on your AN/I on BD, and now this one. Those are the recent ones. Basically, it is taking a noticeboard case and turning it into "get Justanother" on the hope that some admin will buy into their "stuff". This type of activity is off-topic anywhere (if they have a case let them just bring it) but seems especially egregious on the noticeboards. I mean, does Antaeus really think an editor/admin is going to want to jump into that to figure out and answer whatever on-point question is in there? I already figured out (finally) what his argument was and responded to it. I really wish these guys would stop it already and that is my only desired outcome. As regards "dainty". Yes, sure. But I think BD was already well "under control" and Smee was running over my valid edits at the same time in his edit-warring. Smee has said that he will make the necessary adjustments to his editing style and I have made efforts to patch things up between he and I. Thanks for your input on this Antaeus thing, I respect it. --Justanother 16:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG. I've read through the BLP noticeboard thread once and am none the wiser. Frankly I'm stupider. Antaeus Feldspar's posts are rather long and complicated; yours are dreadfully long and complicated. You'll have to apply your own unaided judgement as to whether to take it to ANI, because I can't even tell what's going on. But if you do, consider this: I react with incomprehension and frustration. So does William Thweatt [38]. That's two out of two. There are currently no other comments. What kind of response do you think you'll get if you write like that on ANI, where the competition for admins' attention is so fierce? People are put off by long paragraphs, so please be brief; people don't know the background, so please explain it. These two suggestions are admittedly in dynamic tension with each other. But still. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
Yes, thanks for the advice. And I do apologize for sticking your nose in that. Though I do object (in good-natured manner) to your claiming that I was more long-winded than Antaeus. I broke out the calculator and, prior to Mr. Thweatt, Antaeus was at 56.3% and me at a "mere" 43.7%, but there were just the two of us (smile). And I certainly hope I was more entertaining (but maybe not). My problem is that I have been attacked since I got here in August 2006, just because I am a Scientologist and, while it has been an educational experience and "trial by fire", I am pretty much done now with being attacked, especially as it is seeping over to the notice boards and I imagine that I will be using them to actually get some help from experienced editors like Mr. Thweatt (and yourself) and I am tired of the character assassination employed against me (such as Orsini's that I am a troll and an OSA stooge). If I do decide to pursue it I will be sure to give my sardonic rhetoric a rest. Which I am quite capable of doing. --Justanother 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I did the best I could and posted it to AN/I. Your comments, of course, are welcome. Thanks --Justanother 05:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Dang, despite my best efforts some rhetoric crept in to my posting on AN/I but I have removed it. "Old habits die hard." --Justanother 13:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coding

Just as you've done it. With the refs spelled out, it's a cinch. Marskell 13:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You've merged my notes, I see. No big deal, but I thought those sentences deserved separate citing, as the theatre company history is quite esoteric knowledge. The details about the "adventurers" and about the actors' cooperative are only available in Milhous' book as far as I know, and are on a whole different level from the surrounding paragraph about how the 1690s drama was different from the 1670s, which is 100% known and assented to by everybody who's written on the drama in the past 400 years, and doesn't deserve any citing at all. Milhous lays out two separate things, though connected: the early-robber-baron-raw-capitalism that gutted the company (pp. 37—43), and the (unique, startling) reaction of the actors, who fought back by setting up their own cooperative and revitalizing London theatre life (51—68). Bishonen | talk 14:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
To come down on the other side of our long debate, I was worried two separate cites in adjoining sentences might encourage the [citation needed] every two lines problem. While I do ask for sources at times, I'm certainly not in that camp. What about summation in the cite, briefly detailing what you've just said above and pointing to the page numbers? Marskell 14:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done so. Marskell 18:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

...for your thoughts at User talk:Kosebamse/Wikipedia is not a sentient being; a little further discussion is on that page. Always delighted to hear from you, Kosebamse 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] here we go....

i think the ethics stuff is beginning to get noticed.... [39] - I gather the New Yorker has also published a correction (it's quoted in that blog..). The fact that essjay was to some degree representing wikpedia when talking to the New Yorker is what causes the damage..... just thought i'd let you know... Purples 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And isn't this the same user who was just appointed to ArbCom by the direct order of Jimbo skipping a step of obtaining community's feedback on that while users who passed the voting with >70% threshold were readily available? Where is this all going? --Irpen 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(Come on, Irpen, please hold the rhetorical questions—what good do you think they're going to do?) Very interesting, Purples. It certainly vindicates you, though I don't suppose it makes you happy. :-( Anyway, I hope the users who piled on you for "trolling" feel at least slightly foolish, when or if they see that article. Bishonen | talk 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually I understand where they're coming from - they respect essjay enormously, and want to help 'defend' him - that's cool, just a little misguided. All i really want to do is engage the chap at the centre of it all. Purples 01:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is a project filled with paper dolls. These paper dolls ... people can think either that they represent a person or that they are paper dolls in their own right. It bugs me when anyone tries to embue his or her creature with aspects of a real person. I do not want to have this one say that it has rights and abilities because the person manipulating it has gotten a Ph.D. in web comics, and I do not want to have that one say that it has extra powers because the person manipulating it was a lawyer or judge. Any time that happens, I think the fundamental basis of Wikipedia is being broken. We're either anonymous editors, or we are not, and I loathe the idea of trying to have it both ways. When a person not only tries to make the fiction of the person on Wikipedia refer to the human fictionalizer, but also lets the paper doll step out of the book and equal the person, I'm doubly irritated.
It's easy for me to ignore LordViperScropion's claims to being Brad Pitt. However, when he tries to say that Brad Pitt has the qualities of the avatar and the avatar the qualities of the actor, it's a special kind of offense. If Essjay said he were the Pope, I'd say that means nothing, because all the identities here are presumed to be fiction, but if he says he's the Pope and therefore is the leader of all Catholics who edit Wikipedia, he's being a jerk. If he then goes on to a real world interview as the Pope, it's probably at the level of fraud, at least intellectual fraud.
There is no way to explain to the folks of The New Yorker how the fictions of Wikipedia appeal to those carrying particularly large social wounds, how the most lofty personalities as personalities are often those whose frustrations at reality are greatest, how the least spectacular personalities are often those who really have accomplishments. Geogre 11:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought i'd copy below a message that i received (hope that's not considered rude...) because Geogre and Ancheta seem to me to have the deepest understanding of the bigger wiki issues, and I thank you both for your insights....

It's all kicking off at Jimbo's talk page now, so I think I'll take a step back. I do think it's a shame that essjay didn't just take the opportunity to put a little correction on the record.... ho hum....

Purples 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What worries me is that these are not creatures who deceive to survive, but rather that there is a deception (the electronic self) that is particularly attractive to those who have the greatest deficit in their feelings. I don't want to care about the Wound and the Bow, as it were, don't want to care about this, either way, because only the product matters. If a forger makes a Da Vinci, I'm ok with owning it, so long as I don't pass it off as a Da Vinci: it has all the pleasures of the creation and lacks only the originality. What bothers me is that I think we've been handed a Summa Theologica written by Tommy A. Quines and asked to treat it as by Thomas Aquinas. The game is unequal. George has told Martha that Sonny Jim was killed. The illusion is shattered by trying to take it out of the social contract that licensed it (the deceit that is electronic self). Geogre 02:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

... i think this is where realism comes in. We should not be surprised when people behave unethically, or when they find it hard to understand why others think they're wrong. Or to put it another way, everybody lies. Just a fact of life. I think your point about having it both ways here is very important though - wikipedia seems to engage needy people hugely, who then go through a cycle of feeling excited, empowered, frustrated then embittered - then wipe the slate clean and start again. The clutter talk of wiki-love and making the world a better place doesn't help.

I'm worried that people with serious, real life issues, both acute and chronic come here, get confused about their relationship to their computer screens, and end up getting hurt. There's a argument going on about clerks over at checkuser at the moment - it seems to me that someone has handed out badges, which become badges of first wiki, then self-esteem generally. Of course it's upsetting when someone suggests that your self-esteem is unneccessary - except it's not your self-esteem, it's only an imaginary badge. People handing out the badges bear some responsibility.

To bring these abstractions back to the nitty-gritty, essjay should simply stand down from his arb com, checkuser and oversight responsibilities, put an apology on the record and get on with everything he enjoys around here. If he finds this terribly hard, he should ask himself why....

Purples 03:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"clutter talk of wiki-love"? As you saying that Wikipedians need not try to be nice to each other?
No-one ever gives me a badge. I still have the cuddy rhino, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, we should all be nice to each other - I just find some users a bit zealous beyond reason in their wiki-faith. I'm trying to make a joke about a horn here, but you'll have to figure one out for yourselves..... ps. it's sad to see this thing explode - signal to noise ratio is not good. happy days all! - Purples 06:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] idealism, naturalism, empiricism, and realism (a message from Ancheta to Purples....)

(please see above para... and delete with apologies if considered clutter....)

P., I reply with a philosophical answer, which you may take as you please.

There is a beautiful street in my neighborhood, a quiet one, nicely proportioned, of just the right width and length, with mature trees, nice-looking houses, children who play on its lawns, and neighbors. Once, when driving slowly along it (so as not to alarm the children) I saw a couple speaking to each other. The woman, whom I believe to be the wife, was standing on a large rock, that she might tower over the man, and she appeared to be gesturing in a power-demanding way to the man. This disturbed me, as I have the illusion that those who live on that street have wonderful lives. Clearly, I have an ideal, about that street and life, which rests in my heart.

Although I have these ideals, the love of Nature and all its power lies in my heart as well, so that I understand that the mystery and beauty inherent in N. sometimes has no room for the demands of Man. Thus there are beings in Nature who deceive simply to survive, and their lives are testament to a Nature who lets them be. They exist and survive.

I was trained to respect empiricism because that is at the root of the power of our civilization, but realism probably enjoys a better-founded set of concepts. So I believe that your principled outrage at a being who has deceived, survived, and who has even found a better gig in his existence, may be a stage in the process of

Coping with Grief and Loss -- Common reactions. -- Elizabeth Kubler-Ross
  1. Denial/shock It can't be
  2. Anger toward the person, situation or self
  3. Guilt - If only ...
  4. Depression, Loneliness, Facing death, etc.
  5. Relief
  6. Hope
  7. Return

So the outing of _ has me personally at #4. But I expect my feelings will transmute. I admit to reacting with #1. I do not feel a need to forgive, because I never felt #2. --Ancheta Wis 18:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And the street to which I referred above might be taken as a metaphor for Wikipedia. My references to Nature and Reality stand on their own.

Better to say nothing that to lie, I should have thought - it is not as if anything needed to be said in the first place. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your opinion (and anyone elses)

On your screen on which version is the lettering of the key cleare this [40] or this [41] - i wish I knew how to do these things properly! Giano 08:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They're both rather indistinct for me. Maybe Bunchofgrapes can fix it up? Bishonen | talk 13:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
I'd give it a shot if I could get a version of the image without any of the letters. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2007

(UTC)

Sorry I no longer have one, I left it in Sic last week <sigh> <gulp> <shit>. Can you see the yellow letters OK though? Perhaps I could draw one of my own plans, but they take forever and I always lose my temper with the computer doing them Giano 21:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The yellow letters are somewhat better than the red for me <groan> <fuck> Bishonen | talk 00:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
Giano, I've got autoCAD and draw buildings for a living - why don't you scribble what you're after on the back of fag packet, scan it and send it over? --Joopercoopers 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
My problem <sigh> is that I can't draw, I have a house non-professional drawing package (see Belton House & Buckingham Palace etc.) but I need a plan to work from, as I immagine do you Joopers, and there is non to be found. It is such a big complicated evolution of a place it needs something like that picture to refer to, and I have left that picture in a book in Sicily, so grapes can't have a go either <double shit>, and only have the edited one on my computer. I might try and draw a plan from the picture - just as a reference guide, the yellow numerals do look clearer though than the red - just Giano 10:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sops and frumenty for all!

At long last, the long-overdue nomination of medieval cuisine as an FAC is under way. You are invited to grab your fill of potage, quince pie, a subtlety worthy of a pope, and all the beer you can drink! Oh, and don't forget to make a few comments while you're digging in...

Peter Isotalo 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh ho, very tempting to go oppose you for being under-referenced, I must say! But I'm too disenchanted with FAC, it's gotten about as unpleasant as #wikipedia-en-admins the last time I looked in there (long time ago). You can see me and Giano and Geogre bitchin' and moanin' about FAC and FAR on Giano's talk, if you're foolish enough to want to ruin your appetite. Better just pass the frumenty please! Bishonen | talk 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
Yes, I noticed the three of you being tarter than a bucket of vinegar. Just don't let them spoil all your fun... Deep down, I'm quite the idealist, and I'm going to see if I can't convince the footnote counters that the minimum amount of citations for an FA isn't quite that rigid. Wish me luck!
Peter Isotalo 09:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! I don't have time to give it a proper read right now, but I am sure I will be supporting it just as soon as I have. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AN:I Comment

Hey. Just wanted to apologize again more personally for that accusation on AN:I. It's been a rough coupla months on-wiki and off, and I guess I've been snapping a little. I don't remember who it was I was thinking of, but it was a prominent administrator, and they said they were 'disgusted' by my conduct, and that they would 'gladly recommend my DeSysoping to the ArbCom personally'. Not the most pleasant thing in the world to hear. I remember our interactions now on the topic of another bothersome user, and I apologize for mistaking you for someone else. Luckily, I've put myself on Administrative 'light duty' for the next term or two to get a nice, cleansing break from all of the warring. No harm done? --InShaneee 06:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all, InShaneee. Of course not. I remember two separate bothersome users we've had dealings with together... one too smart for his own good and the other, er, just the opposite—I don't know if those descriptions are enough for you to recall the people! What's light duty--no blocking? I took myself off admin duty altogether once, all the buttons, outraged that one of our best admins had been de-adminned from on high, most unfairly as I thought. That turned out to be a fine opportunity to write a full-scale article, for once. Hope you return refreshed after the light duty! It is only a website, after all. Best, Bishonen | talk 12:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
For me, 'light duty' is simply not getting into any pre-existing disputes...and by that, I mean distancing myself from the various Kurd/Turk debates. There's still a lot that needs to be done there, but I know another admin has stepped in for the time being, so I feel a little more comfortable letting it go for a time. Currently? I'm rediscovering my love of New Page Patrol :) . And hey, good to see you're turned your outrage into opportunity. This is just a website, but I think the reason we're all here is because we know it can be more than that. Happy editing. --InShaneee 17:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Spelling

The new Giano, with biretta.
The new Giano, with biretta.

I hace a feeling Beretta is not the right spelling for my new accoutrement - hang on I'll look Giano 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah here we are biretta Giano 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
How about tiara? Bishonen | talk 23:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

One step at a time my child Giano 23:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG, he has a Beretta! Clearly that's part of the Sicilian haircut! Geogre 13:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What else does a Sicilian keep in his daity red handbag? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A packet of Marlboro lights Giano 12:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
probably some lippy too - cardinal red naturally.--Alf melmac 12:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Very strange, though. edward (buckner) 07:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouch... don't say that. I thought my argument was real convincing. It makes me a little nervous if you don't, of all people! Mind you, I'm quite resigned to waking up and finding myself desysopped. I'm getting a bit pissed off by what goes on in this place. Bishonen | talk 07:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
No, I meant the whole thing was very strange. Your argument was fine. I've been here 4 years in June, and nothing like this, ever. Best, and thanks again. I'm more upset by WorldTraveller. Very hard to find good editors. edward (buckner) 10:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It's an issue that won't die, too -- not WT, but the whole "you called me 'wrong,' which is clearly a personal attack." It's very difficult for people to understand that we should not insult people, but blocking is a type of insult. Geogre 12:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Favour requested

Hi, Bishonen. I'm posting stuff at Wikipedia when I really need to be writing my paper. In order to reduce the temptation for me to get involved, would you do me a favour and add User talk:GordonWatts to your watchlist. You'll remember Gordon's incredibly ill-judged self nomination for adminship over a year ago, and actually I'm turning to you mainly because you opposed him at the time, and were challenged lengthily, so you know what he's like, and couldn't be accused of unduly favouring him, but at the same time, I know you have a strong sense of allowing blocked users some dignity.

Gordon is a well-meaning editor, who hasn't a clue how to get along with people who disagree with him, and doesn't make the effort to try to get along with them. He posts hundreds of words, often in different colours to draw attention to them. And he has to argue on every little point. However, his article edits are often helpful, improving word flow, correcting inaccuracies (whether Terri Schiavo was in a hospice or a hospital on a certain date), fixing spelling errors, etc. Unfortunately, he has tried very hard to get links to his own websites put in to the article, and got upset at the opposition, which included a lot of completely unnecessary rudeness and belittling. A community ban was sought, and he argued with everyone, even those who were trying to help him, and posted thousands of words, getting quite disruptive, and lost a lot of the support that he originally had. The ban vote was closed incorrectly, as the community had mostly said either that he couldn't go near anything to do with Terri Schiavo, or that he could edit the Schiavo articles but only post once a day on the Schiavo talk pages. He was told that he couldn't edit the articles, and could post once a day on the talk pages — something which nobody had voted for. He then filed an arbitration case against all the people who had voted against him, and started arguing and wiki-lawyering with the arbitrators. Then he appealed to Jimbo, and was blocked indefinitely for disruption. There was some very bad-taste gloating.[42] [43]

The indefinite block was reduced to a month, but he's still able to edit his talk page, and is still reacting there. He's in danger of being permanently blocked if he mentions his links again, and I don't actually think he'll do it if nobody provokes him by telling him that they're not suitable. He has accepted that the consensus is that he may not add them to articles, and in any case, he doesn't have any greater history of edit warring than other people on the Terri Schiavo article. However, I'm worried that he's going to respond to posts where people tell him that he's not to mention his links, and that it may be used against him to make the block permanent.

In case you're interested, there's discussion here and here. There's also a longish post from me here, which is cross-posted from TenOfAllTrades's talk page. Don't feel under any obligation to wade through any of it, though, as I'm not asking you to unblock Gordon or to "vote" in any discussion. All I'm asking is that you'd keep an eye on his talk page, and discourage people from posting anything that will make him feel he has to respond. (And poor Gordon feels he has to respond to everything!) If people keep up the arguments on his talk page, he'll argue back, saying why they're wrong to say he can't talk about his links, and then it's quite likely that someone will block him for talking about them. But if everyone leaves him alone, and stops mentioning his links even on other pages that he watches, there's a reasonable chance that he'll stop mentioning them. He has already said he'll stop, but he's just not able to not repond when someone argues with him. I've seen you dealing quite kindly and tactfully with people who had trouble "letting go" before. I think I'll ask GTBacchus to watch that talk page as well. I'm really not asking for any action: this could be one of the cases where doing nothing is the best possible solution. I'd just like to think that a few people who are not interested in trampling on people's dignity would be watching his page. Thanks. Musical Linguist 15:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry that you don't have the tact for the job. You don't need a lot of tact. Gordon, contrary to what you might think, is not huffy. He once gave a barnstar to an editor who had called him an asshole and a certifiable nutjob, and had said he needed his ass kicked, plus lots of other similar things. And my recent post to him isn't exactly full of compliments, but he e-mailed me and thanked me. Anyway, if you feel "a great wave of, hmm, impatience" engulfing you, you can't do better than think of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, who describes in her journal/autobiography how someone was infuriating her, complaining, nagging, finding fault, etc., and Thérèse listened in silence, and then, before leaving the room, did one more thing. "I gave her my best smile." My mother always used to quote that — as a joke, not as an attempt to preach!
Seriously, though, I think there's a problem if people start goading a blocked user by telling him on his talk page that he's not to mention his links, and then threaten him with an indefinite block if he answers, on his talk page, that he doesn't think that's fair, or that he doesn't need Wikipedia to link to his websites, because he gets plenty of hits anyway. I'm all for increasing a block when a blocked user spends his block time by filling his talk page with "[Name of blocking admin] likes to rape little boys". But if we don't have the self control not to insist on having the last word, why should we expect him to? You said something wonderful months ago about how admins are more powerful than users, but so much more powerful than blocked users, and that a sensitive awareness of that should make us tolerant of what blocked users say when they're blocked. I can't remember the context, or where you said it, but I'm annoyed I didn't make a note of the diff at the time. because it was one of the best posts I've ever seen. It's the reason I though of you when making the request. <groan> Anyway, Gordon hasn't posted in the last few days, and I have some hope that he'll follow the advice I gave him, if people don't provoke him. If they do, I have absolutely no hope at all that he'll be able to ignore them.
Important note: the "best smile" advice is intended strictly for Bishonen, and perhaps for some other humans reading this post. I do not recommend that Bishzilla try giving "her best smile". I think it would be far more scary than her frown. (Has anyone ever seen her best smile and lived?) <flees in terror at the thought of Bishzilla's best smile> Musical Linguist 12:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I am starting the think that my early archiving[44][45] of our previous discussion gave the impression of a dismissal of your views. It was not my intent to dismiss your concerns.

Directly before this dispute, I decided to take a wikibreak due unrelated issues. My intent was to keep my talk page clear. I gave the edit summary to indicate that I was archiving it and that it was being addressed on WP:ANI. I was not trying to snub you, and I am sorry if that is how it came across.

My wikibreak is not related to this issue, rather I am making an exception to my wikibreak to deal with it. No hard feelings, we can disagree, but we need to remember that we are both working towards what we think is best for Wikipedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, I hear that cannibis can really fuck with your wits. Could that be the problem here? Bishonen clearly doesn't want you harassing her here. Your pre-archiving post shows what you thought of "her concerns", or as you so delicately put it in all your no-NPA fervor, "this shit". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, grapes, I was simply attempting to apologize and make my motives clear. People don't smoke pot and go all crazy, I don't know where you have done your research, but that is way out there in left field. My pre-archiving has been explained, and I thank you not to attribute motives to me like that. I have received a lot of hostility, and I have myself been a little uncivil, I was attempting to apologize for that.
I appreciate your opinion, but I don't think it is in line with my motives of easing any hard feelings that may of accumulated. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I see your apology hidden in there, where you're sorry if Bishonen misinterpreted your comments. Very big of you. (1) Stop blocking people, you don't have enough awareness of your surroundings to do it safely. (2) Go away, stop posting here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I've just been marveling at the filter that turns, "You've done the wrong thing. The policy does not allow that kind of action" into "You are completely correct, and everyone who counts is with you." I know there are things that can do that, but I've never ingested any. Geogre 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Peace man! Giano 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite block of BabyDweezil

Bish, as you have experience of this user, would you mind commenting on the indefinite block? Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Out of curiosity, what is the new policy on Wikipedia:Community noticeboard versus Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? Thanks for your time. Smee 20:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Sorry it wasn't clear. Proposed community bans go on WP:CN now, as being the business of the community, and not specifically of admins.[46] If I've got it right, community bans are one of the main purposes, or the main purpose, of the Community noticeboard — what it was created for. Bishonen | talk 20:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Thank you. Smee 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] BD Move

Hi. My oppose seemed to have gotten lost in the move - would you mind fixing that? Thanks. --Justanother 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I see now. Thanks --Justanother 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you have a word

Hi Bish, Sorry to trouble you with this, but would you mind having a word with Certified.Gangsta? He's repeatedly trying to add an unsourced and disputed claim into Michelle Marsh (model), he's accused me and another editor of stalking when we've reverted him, and he is going around making edits to the effect that the Taiwanese aren't ethnically Chinese on all sorts of pages. It's gotten to the stage where more of his edits are reverted than kept, and by a wide range of editors. He's sticking to the letter of 3RR, but not the spirit. I don't think he's deliberately trolling, but the end effect is still disruptive. For his sake, can you have a talk to him? Thanks, Ben Aveling 21:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to, I've got his page watchlisted. It's just everybody at the same time... I mean, Gordon... yikes. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
Gordon, Essjay, and less publicly but more ironically, there's been a slightly nasty stoush happening in one part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Kindness Campaign. Sigh. Thanks. I owe you one, another one. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you don't — not yet at least — I wrote a note for CG, but lost momentum when I checked his latest contribs — he seems to have stopped the Michelle Marsh thing cold, presumably in response to Nandesuka's message. That would be nice. I'll take another look tomorrow. Yaaaawn... Bishonen | talk 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Hey Bishy, how's it going?? Sorry about that Michelle March episode, I did a quick google search and hopefully it will be resolved. As for the Taiwan vs. China situation, enough had been said about that. On a side note, I was hoping you can get in touch with Ben and help resolve our differences. I mean, no offense, but he seems a lil hostile toward me ever since we decided to block Guardian Tiger. Thankz :)--Certified.Gangsta 05:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Gangsta, I hear you're a boob man! Seriously, this ... what a sight. I'm glad to hear that's all over. And it's good to see you around. People are leaving your Bishzilla banner alone, I trust. But, er... I hope you realize what horrors the banner link can lead your unsuspecting visitors into? Did you, in fact... <gulp> ... did you CLICK on it, CG...? Best not, believe me. Bishonen | talk 08:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

hahaha you're hilarious, bish. Btw can you blcok User:LionheartX since he is obviously a sock of you-know-who.--Certified.Gangsta 02:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I always thought this kind of sockpuppetry is always block on sight. (ban-evasion, WP:POINT) It seems like you're not interested in getting involve. Never mind then. I guess I'll have to go through the same painful process everytime :(.--Certified.Gangsta 01:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Bish, Bish, Bish...help me!--Certified.Gangsta 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was kind of enjoying the sight of him on Ben's page, and of Ben's words on WP:AN3RR... I'm a bad person. Now what? Bishonen | talk 08:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] RFC minor formatting

  • Could you maybe help User:Anynobody with some minor formatting/procedural issues at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anynobody and Justanother? I am not entirely familiar with the RFC formatting and procedure, as a specific RFC to users and not articles. Thank you for your time. Smee 00:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
I don't blame you. It's quite misleading that user RFCs and article RFCs even share a name, as they function and are formatted quite differently. The most important thing about user RFCs is right at the top of the template: there must be a co-signer of the RFC, somebody who has attempted (independently of Anynobody) to resolve the issues with JA. Both Anynobody and the other editor must sign, and provide evidence of their efforts to resolve the problem within 48 hours of creating the RFC. Evidence means diffs. Everything else can pretty much wait, but the 48-hour thing is obligatory, and if it's not complied with, the RFC is highly likely to be deleted as soon as the 48 hours are up.
What I'd prefer to do is move the page into Anynobody's own space, in other words give it a name of the form User:Anynobody/Requests for comment/Justanother; stop the people who have already been asked to comment; move it back into Wikipedia space later, when it's a bit more ready to meet the world; and start those 48 hours then instead of now. OK? Then I could give some help and advice tomorrow, as I'm about to go to bed right now. (Such is my timezone.) If you reply now—right now—I can move the page; if not, please confer with A and move it yourself if you know how (it's easy), or ask any experienced user. For instance one of the freaks that hang out at this page of mine. And don't list it on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct yet! Bishonen | talk 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Did not get to your comment early enough, but added myself as a party and some evidence. Let myself or User:Anynobody know how it looks/what should be done at this point... Also, what is the best way to notify previously involved parties about the existence of the page in a neutral manner? Smee 16:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Well... I'm actually a little frustrated that you asked my advice and then ignored it. Changing the page into a userpage until it's ready is the way to go IMO, especially because then there'll be time to deal properly with the "dispute resolution" thing. Changing it into a userpage can be done any time as long as nobody has commented, after that it'll be too late. But never mind, this is what to do with an RFC that's already in Wikipedia space (=has a name beginning with "Wikipedia"):

  • The name of the page should be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother. This is standard, and Anynobody, who's making the request, isn't supposed to be in the title.
  • The page must be listed and linked on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.
  • About notifying people, that's a little delicate, indeed. The only person who must be notified, and perhaps the only one who should be, is Justanother. If you want to spread the news, you obviously have to be careful not to simply notify people who have issues with Justanother. Not sure what you mean by "previously involved". Involved in what? Anynobody seems to be asking for comments on the way the two of them have been interacting—how is anybody else involved in that?
  • The links at "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" are no good, to put it brutally. Posting warning templates on JA's page certainly doesn't qualify as attempted dispute resolution. (Didn't I tell you once that it was frowned on?) Dispute resolution means a bona fide attempt at reaching out, and I think you may be too upset with JA to be the best person for it. Suggestion: try asking Jossi, who knows the ropes, to contact JA and try to talk with him about Anynobody's concerns. (Yes, I know there's little time for that... people do tend to run short of time at this point. The way it's looking now, practically any admin will delete the page after 48 hours, if JA requests it.) A technical point, also: the top 3 links under "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" don't work, and I think there are some more on the page that don't. You need html links for talkpage sections, and you need permanent links, that'll still point to the same section after the page itself is archived or whatever. And, as the instructions say, linking to a whole page isn't useful. I can easily format the links so they work right if you like (just ask), but you do need to have better dispute resolution to point to.
  • I don't think Anynobody should put his reason for making the request on the talkpage, it should be on the main page. Under "Statement of the dispute", perhaps, or "Description". (It's a very nice explanation—it's good to see a RFC that's not full of acrimony and it's-all-his-fault —but it would be even better if it was a little shorter.)
  • Finally, I'm sorry it's such a bureaucratic nightmare. You probably weren't expecting that. User RFC's are horrible timesinks. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] My apologies.

  • Well... I'm actually a little frustrated that you asked my advice and then ignored it. - Please understand that I had started to add to the RFC, upon request from User:Anynobody, before I had seen your suggestions, so I did not "ignore" your suggestions, it was just too late. At any rate, I will try to implement some of your suggestions now. Please bear with me, as you are correct - I am unfamiliar with this process. If you feel you can adjust the page, be my guest. Smee 00:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
    • I have notified User:Jossi as per your suggestion and asked for help. DIFF If you think you can fix some of the links on the RFC page, and/or fix it to be more appropriate, that would be most helpful. Smee 01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
"Changing it into a userpage can be done any time as long as nobody has commented, after that it'll be too late." Nobody has commented, so I can still userfy it to give you more time for dispute resolution. Shall I do that, or do you think you can have it done up right within the 48 hours? I won't do a technical fix of the links at this stage, as I think you need links to better places. Good that you pinged Jossi. Anybody can list the page, but if you do want the page userfied, it shouldn't be listed yet. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
I am not opposed to userfying the page, but User:Anynobody started the RFC initially, I was just responding to his request that I add comments/evidence. If you or Anynobody wishes to do that - I have no objection - but I probably should not. Smee 01:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Oh, I'd better not, then, I assumed you two were in touch. But I've moved A's explanation from the talkpage to the project page. Please let him know that he should sign it, if you speak — no reason to make the reader dig around for who is bringing the RFC. Bishonen | talk 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
I wouldn't know any more than you. I've only "spoken" to him through Wikipedia talk pages. But I will let him know if I do. Again, as User:Anynobody started the RFC, and not myself, as far as I am concerned your judgment is fine. Smee 01:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm really sorry to cause so much trouble on both of your parts, rest assured I'm learning. Also please understand I am very thankful for your help. Maybe an RfC was the wrong road for me to take? Essentially I'd like other editors to take a look at my interaction with User:Justanother. I honestly don't know if I'm wrong or right, so my intention in listing myself was making it clear I'm willing to accept accountability for any errors I've made. Anynobody 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC) To be clear I'm happy to accept any suggestions. Anynobody 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Better than an RfC, that as Bishonen put it are "horrible timesinks" (an opinion that I also share), would you consider informal mediation between you and Justanother? Sometimes having such a third-party assisting can really help in disputes such as this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I did consider mediation at first, but personally I'd like to hear from several editors. If I understand what Bishonen is proposing, it would be to move the page as is to a subpage under my userpage. Once it gets a few comments, then move it back to the RfC? If that's what the proposal is I have no objections. Anynobody 06:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not "once it gets a few comments". It won't get comments while it's in your userspace, that's the whole point. It won't start until it's moved back to a live RFC, and, on my reading of the always-vexed RFC rules, you would be able to restart the clock for those 48 hours when it was moved back. What you need the time for is dispute resolution. The rule is that there must be real attempts, by two people, to resolve differences with JA, or the RFC gets deleted. It doesn't have to be formal mediation, informal is fine, but it must be a real discussion—not scolding JA with warning templates and such. Of course the hope is that the mediation will be enough in itself, and the RFC become superfluous—compare Jossi's comment here. But if it isn't enough, it's in any case a prerequsite for the RFC. OK, I've gone ahead and moved the page into your userspace as User:Anynobody/Requests for comment/Justanother. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

A quick question before this goes any further, did it really seem like I was posting warning templates and scolding him? Anynobody 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, IMO your attempts were ok, I was talking about Smee's. "There must be real attempts, by *two people*, to resolve differences with JA". See the top of the RFC template: "at least *two people* need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed". You're only one. Bishonen | talk 07:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your reply, I'm sorry if that last question seemed blunt but what you were describing is exactly the kind of thing I meant to avoid. Considering that I didn't mean to create a situation where an RfC was necessary, for a little while I thought I was really messing up if you were describing my attempts the way I thought. I also don't want to give you the impression I don't consider your advice valuable, I just figured the worst that could happen was it got rejected. I know it may sound crazy, but I've been trying to do this without making things worse with Justanother. If I had to find somebody else to sign off besides Smee he might think I was creating a cabal against him (I wish I could say I'm joking). Anynobody 07:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with whatever User:Anynobody and User:Bishonen are comfortable with. Smee 07:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen I guess your proposal confused me because Smee and myself make two people trying to resolve these issues on User:Justanother's talkpage. I found a couple of other editor's who's posts User:Justanother archived from his talk page regarding similar concerns. I re-posted it for consideration. If it fails (the RfC), then it fails. I really do appreciate your time on this, thanks :) Anynobody 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Uvak38/Veronica Yurach Aboriginal Artist

User:Uvak38/Veronica Yurach Aboriginal Artist Thank you Bishonen for moving my article and not just quick deleting it. I also appreciate your advice on the wording in my article that needs to be changed, you are the first who has made it clear to me what is wrong with it. As far as Veronica's story goes I will have verifiable published reference material from a reliable source.

Very cool. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Clue needed

Hi. I know that Smee respects your opinion so could you please send him a clue re his removal of my POV tag. diff of my objecting. Thanks. --Justanother 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And edit warring over it. ps Please see User_talk:Jossi#Your_offer and User talk:MrDarcy#PA by User:Johnpedia for a different perspective on Anynobody, i.e. the view from the trenches. Thanks. --Justanother 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
And finally the false accusation of PA. Smee is back and true to form. --Justanother 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scared.

  • I am quite frankly getting scared for my personal safety due to User:Justanother's personal attacks in edit summaries and elsewhere. DIFF1, DIFF2. There is a reason for the language text in Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks that says comment on content not contributors. I am uncomfortable and not well with this, to say the least. Smee 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
    • OH MY GAWD. What a drama queen! Can someone please please please send him a clue! --Justanother 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry this conflict is getting to you, Smee. I have to agree with Friday and Justanother that there's no external reason for you to be scared, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. That's not what it's supposed to be like to edit here! I hope you'll find it in you to walk away from the most stressful pages for a few days and decompress by editing uncontroversial stuff. When people do that, they're often surpried and relieved to find that other people do pick up the slack. That the page does survive their absence. Or so ALoan tells me. ALoan, back me up here? Bishonen | talk 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
        • Thank you for the support. Smee 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
          • And Smee, while I figured the "Scared" was all BS for effect, I do realize that I could have been wrong and you might actually be getting that upset and really be feeling fear. Just know, Smee, that I come in peace! Mean you no harm. Would certainly buy you a cuppa coffee if we were to meet. So no worries, man. --Justanother 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
            • That is hard to believe, but I will try. Suffice it to say that that situation would be unlikely to occur. Smee 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
              • Smee, I am a total sweetheart! You would love me. --Justanother 03:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                • We're done here. while I figured the "Scared" was all BS for effect does not go very far towards acknowledging that my feelings are real. It invalidates your following statements. But thanks for the effort. Just try to act like a total sweetheart here on Wikipedia, like you would offline, and we should get along better. Smee 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
                  • I said that to explain why I called you a "drama queen" instead of making any effort to acknowledge your feelings and try to assuage your fears. Bishonen's reply highlighted my failing so I tried to repair it. Or at least repair the part where you say that you felt fear for your safety in the real world. As far as your "safety" here, I offered you an olive branch twice and you spit at me. That said, I have decided to give my sarcasm a rest but you can still expect me to continue to object most strenuously to any abusive editing on your part. --Justanother 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                    • I am glad that you say that you will finally try to give your sarcasm a rest. I am sure that will be appreciated by all. Smee 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, a bit late for backing up, but yes: if you are doing a job that needs doing, then I find that someone will step in and do it if you stop doing it. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Isps gate.jpg

This image was released under the GFDL. I'm not aware that such a release can be revoked. Is there a reason why it was deleted? -Will Beback · † · 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was problematic, sorry. In view of what I've just read on the article talk, and what people told me on IRC, I've undeleted. Bishonen | talk 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks. -Will Beback · † · 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clue-o-gram needed

Anynobody thinks this is me . . . really
Anynobody thinks this is me . . . really
ROARRR!!
ROARRR!!

Would you mind helping User:Anynobody out with a clue? I am including a stamp because I figured that you probably needed one and that is why you were not able to clue Smee in for me earlier. Anyway, now Anynobody is impugning User:MrDarcy as "representing" me and being "out of line". Diff. I feel bad because Mr Darcy is on wiki-break and he was just trying to help me with a very rude post, User talk:MrDarcy/Archive5#PA by User:Johnpedia. Thanks. --Justanother 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

From my archive "You appear to experience some kind of Incredible Hulk persona when you really start to melt down (I was gonna say Jekyl/Hyde but the Hulk sounds less like an insult considering many consider him to be a superhero whereas the former is considered a monster)." --Anynobody --Justanother 05:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Justanother I can tell you are really angry, but in this case you took things a bit too far when you had MrDarcy chastise Johnpedia for simply giving me his opinion in a user talk page discussion. Johnpedia might have phrased his opinion differently if he knew you would be watching. Also I can't invite you, you asked me not to post on your talk page anymore (Posting notice of the RfC is an exception, you still deserve to know about action be taken against you). Anynobody 09:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not angry, Anynobody; I am having a blast. When I get angry it is pretty obvious, as you well know (green skin, torn clothes, you know). --Justanother 15:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monstergram

(Oh, come on.) To whom it concern: little Justanother total sweetheart. What's with bad press for monsters? ROAAARRRR!!! Bishzilla (experiencing very good persona) | ROAR 07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Little people not understand green skin monsters. Green skin monsters not bad! Only big! --JustaHulk 12:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A flower...

A flower for the 8th of March, from User:Zocky
A flower for the 8th of March, from User:Zocky
Aww! It's lovely. Thank you Zocky. And thank you very much for the picture popups, the search function, and the link completion. :-) Bishonen | talk 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Happy 8th of March, Bish! The day that originally signified the rebellion of the working women against the kitchen slavery and called for a refusal to accept the oppression and Babbittry of the household work! In my Soviet and Post-Soviet years the holiday has already changed the meaning to a wussy combination of St Valentine's and Mother's day but I kind of like the original meaning. But you stay joyful! You hear me?. --Irpen. --Heheh, this poster is very cool. Young radical banner-carrying (yet aproned) woman putting out her hand to pull free the older woman — her mother? — who is being crushed under the weight of household paraphernalia! Is that a samovar on top of her? Bishonen.---Yes, it is a samovar all right. And the apron worn by the younger woman is perhaps due to her being a factory worker or something. Enjoy a pic on the similar theme below. The theme of "liberating" women from an old way of life was pretty big then. --Irpen 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Happy 8th of March, Bish! The day that originally signified the rebellion of the working women against the kitchen slavery and called for a refusal to accept the oppression and Babbittry of the household work! In my Soviet and Post-Soviet years the holiday has already changed the meaning to a wussy combination of St Valentine's and Mother's day but I kind of like the original meaning. But you stay joyful! You hear me?. --Irpen.
--Heheh, this poster is very cool. Young radical banner-carrying (yet aproned) woman putting out her hand to pull free the older woman — her mother? — who is being crushed under the weight of household paraphernalia! Is that a samovar on top of her? Bishonen.
---Yes, it is a samovar all right. And the apron worn by the younger woman is perhaps due to her being a factory worker or something. Enjoy a pic on the similar theme below. The theme of "liberating" women from an old way of life was pretty big then. --Irpen 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Soviet propaganda poster from 1931. The text reads: "Down with the kitchen slavery! Yes to a new way of life!" The buildings seen through an open door carry their names. The sky-scrapper is a "Club", then goes "Cafeteria", "Kitchen-Factory" and "day nursery". Please note not only the message of the poster but the artistic style of Grigoriy Shegal (brief bio in en, some other works). --Irpen
Soviet propaganda poster from 1931. The text reads: "Down with the kitchen slavery! Yes to a new way of life!" The buildings seen through an open door carry their names. The sky-scrapper is a "Club", then goes "Cafeteria", "Kitchen-Factory" and "day nursery". Please note not only the message of the poster but the artistic style of Grigoriy Shegal (brief bio in en, some other works). --Irpen

What is all this about the 8th March being so special- is it someone's bithday? Giano 23:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes! It is the birthday of Klara Zetkin that we all celebrate here. --Irpen 23:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, yeah - er I see! Klara's all yours Irpen.Thanks Giano! You know, this woman was picked to symbolize the left-wing alternative to the "bourgeois" feminism. --Irpen
Right, yeah - er I see! Klara's all yours Irpen.

Thanks Giano! You know, this woman was picked to symbolize the left-wing alternative to the "bourgeois" feminism. --Irpen
Beter still in 1971 on this day Joe Frazier beat Muhammad Ali - truly amazing date! Giano 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bish, in case you also like "sweet and cheezy", we are all human after all, here (Image:8march_landysh.jpg) is the image from the same country on a different theme. I am not allowed to post a fairuse image to your page :(, so only a link but see here for a full context. Cheers, --Irpen 02:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinclair Lewis was the first American to win the Nobel Prize for literature. That's the connection to Sweden, as Lewis wrote Babbitt, and he said, when he accepted, "Our American professors like their authors like their literature: dead." Well, Lewis is now liked by professors, and poor, dumb Mr. Babbitt has become an adjective. Why, he's a big man at the local Elk's Club. An Elk is not to be confused with Anne Elk, who was a noted female professor whom the Soviets decided to celebrate on March 8th. Geogre 02:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • in that respect then poor dumb Mr Babbit was rather like poor Mr Bobbit Giano 12:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Mrs. Babbitt was a pro with a chopping knife, but she would never have considered attacking her blobbery husband. Also, he was rather sexless, or befuddled about it, and lacked the malice necessary for getting an immigrant bride and then committing marital rape. He was a praire flower, not a Bronx cheer. Geogre 12:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I meant in becoming an adjective, although I think Mrs Bobbit created a very - what did yu think I meant? Giano 12:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Quick favor?

  • I tagged a bunch of images I had uploaded with {{db-author}}. Though it may not be the perfect db-speedy tag for this purpose, it works. If you have a chance, feel free to go through my latest contribs and delete those newly-tagged images. If not, I'm sure some other Admin will notice it. Thank you for your time. Smee 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
    • There aren't any in your recent contribs (unless we're talking about Commons, which isn't for me to meddle with), so I suppose JKelly took care of it? Bishonen | talk 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Evidently somebody did, yes. No, the Commons stuff are all Free Images, and heavily explained with detailed licensing tags. Smee 18:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feel strange . . . head . . . swimming . . . clothes . . . stretching

Need help. Users Smee and FoO breaking rules at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother. Posting threaded counter-point to my supporter is direct violation of the instruction statement at the top of the section and at the bottom of the RfC. My response area mine, not for non-supporter, that must go on talk page . . . must . . . hold . . . on . . . 3RR on it now cannot do more . . . . need help. --Justanother 03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Users signing other subsection should not edit the the "Response" section, but that does not mean that they cannot comment below it. And it is highly inappropriate and conflict-of-interest for User:Justanother to be the one to "clerk" the page, and remove what he feels should not belong. That should instead fall to the mediators and outside parties involved in the RFC. Smee 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Smee, you are clearly misreading the very clear instructions. The Response Section is the section after Statement of the dispute and before Outside view. That section is for me and my supporters to make our statements without having to "defend" them in threaded discussions. Now take a look at the final bit where threaded responses to endorsements are specifically covered. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page. How clear does it have to be? --Justanother 03:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It was a signed comment directly related to an endorsement, which is allowed. But in any rate, it is not your job to police the RFC in the manner that you see fit for it to proceed. Not to mention it reflects poorly on your behaviour patterns. Smee 04:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
"it reflects poorly on your behaviour patterns" that I want to play by the rules? And you are wrong; it is not allowed. Wanna bet a week's editing? --Justanother 04:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Silence --Justanother 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll let others respond to this one. This bullbaiting is a waste of time. Smee 05:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Well OK, I just made you an offer to "put your money where your mouth is". Nothing wrong with that. Guess you don't care to. --Justanother 05:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] You about?

Hello Bishonen, got a quick favor to ask of you regarding a block you performed the other day. You about? (→Netscott) 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Guy got to it. You blocked user Headphonos (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for a week the other day. I uncovered that that account was a sockpuppet of the banned User:SirIsaacBrock and JzG wasn't around so I was going to ask you to indef. block the sock. JzG has taken care of it, he also indef. blocked Arcticdawg (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) another sockpuppet of the same user. Cheers. (→Netscott) 14:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok, thanks, I was real busy but I was getting to it... sort of. ;-) Bishonen | talk 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] A favour

I think it is time that [47] was released into the wild - can you do it? I can't because of moving the history - but more importantly (you can all join in this) what does it have to be caled - I rather like the proper name "Palais Princier de Monaco" - Most people refer to it as the "The Royal Palace, Monaco" we already have the translation favoured by the official site [48] Prince's Palace of Monaco - I suppose that has to be the answer, a merge with that page but to my sunkissed ear it sounds clumsy and ugly. Giano 10:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it has to be "Prince's Palace of Monaco" - I have made the others redirects. Giano 10:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you don't want to cut and paste the article in your user page over the existing article, but would rather move it to keep the edit history intact? I have the potestas administratorum - would you like me to help? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks ALoan, I think Bishonen is doing while we speak! Giano 11:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Sweatheart Giano 11:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe it—people couldn't leave the talkpage alone for two minutes. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. This is gonna be messy, avert your eyes. Bishonen | talk 11:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Zilla fix! Talkpage successfully merged with Project:Paranormal! All edit now! Bishzilla | ROAR 11:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Gulp, little user prostates self at altar of zilla's fury, thinks might be reprehensible. user learn better wikiteque - quick! [49] --Joopercoopers 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
/Bishzilla stuff little user firmly in pocket to keep safe from Bishonen's puny wrath. Encouragingly: Climb Reichstag now, little Joopercoopers? Bishzilla | ROAR 21:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] A clue, a clue, my kingdom for a clue.

Diff. When people that have the clues do not share the clues then the clueless remain clueless. --Justanother 15:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks . . . a lot

Thank you very much, Bishonen. Really! I am going to try to enjoy a well-earned wiki-break! --Justanother 02:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The deleted RfC

Hello Bishonen,

I see from your edit here you've removed this RfC. In your edit summary, you have stated that you see the parties' attempts to resolve the dispute were inadequate. However, the subject of this RfC has engaged in repeated egregiously uncivil and disruptive behavior, not only against Anynobody, but against any editor who does not share his beliefs or takes issue with his behavior. In fact, I had comments to add to the RfC, and to my surprise, the RfC was deleted. Please note I have seen efforts by Anynobody to resolve their dispute, and to avoid a dispute in the first instance. But as your edit cites that you view previous efforts of the dispute resolution as being inadequate, can you (as an experienced editor, especially in these types of matters) please suggest ways in which this type of dispute can be better handled and resolved, or what other steps should have been taken prior to creating the now deleted RfC? I seek the benefit of your experience and hope you can show the way here. Kind regards, Orsini 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

02:36, 10 March 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother" (This is much older than 48 hours with the certification still woefully inadequate, as I warned the participants several days ago, and Justanother has requested deletion.) Bishonen I understand you felt that it didn't meet the RfC requirements, however somebody else did and added it to the approved section. Moreover you didn't respond to my last post under the RfC discussion explaining that I was not the only signer, which is why it got approved I thought. You could have at least explained your view more clearly before deleting the RfC, either in the request itself or the RfC talk page.. I can see by your talk page history that you and Justanother are friends, and I suspect you may have let your feelings get in the way on this issue. I'm asking you to undelete the RfC, as there were other editors who have yet to comment. There certainly must be some way to escalate this matter above you, and must point out that if you take no further action I will research and pursue them. Anynobody 04:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I could have explained my view more clearly? Gosh. Well, if you say so. I did my best.[50] Certainly there are ways of seeking review of administrative actions, and I encourage you to pursue them. The formal way is to open an RFC on me. A simpler, more informal way is to post on WP:ANI. See the page instructions: "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here." Bishonen | talk 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
Hello Anynobody, I can appreciate why you may be understandably annoyed at the RfC being deleted. However, I cannot agree with your assessment that Bishonen and Justanother are operating in a conflict of interest; in fact, please note this exchange with regards to the BabyDweezil case. It would appear the RfC User Comment process is very time-consuming, which is one reason why editors and admins are reluctant to pursue them, except in clear cases of disputes which cannot be resolved any other way. My personal opinion of Justanother's editing behavior is that it is inappropriate, however in order to back a new RfC, I would also need to demonstrate that I had made adequate attempts to resolve my dispute with Justanother, which I cannot do, as Justanother appears to me to become overtly hostile as soon as the premises he cites as facts are called into question. I find it difficult to reach consensus when such behavior is exhibited. However, I do believe and have observed that, to your credit, you have not only attempted to avoid disputes in the first place, you have also made considerable efforts to resolve them, despite Justanother's clearly uncivil and disruptive behavior, and the tag team games being played with an editor who has now been banned. It also appears to me that Justanother has a pattern of making comments to incite and provoke people, and initiate discussions in which his stated premises are inherently flawed; to cite one example of many: in the Barbara Schwarz article, he falsely claimed it was sourced mainly from postings to the Usenet and thus is not reliably sourced. I have read Bishonen's comments here and other comments about the process here and I hope Bishonen can suggest some ways to resolve the dispute. I do not personally believe Bishonen let feelings interfere with the RfC issue, and I believe you may agree that Bishonen may have had feelings to the contrary of those suggested after reading the exchange above with regards to the "section break and noticeboard disruption". Please review it, as it may change some of your opinions stated above. Kind regards, Orsini 09:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
How about instead of deleting, you could move it back to User:Anynobody/Requests for comment/Justanother? Smee 04:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
What, again? Sorry, no, that's not the way it's done. See the RFC instructions: "If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted." Not "will be moved to the userspace". Also, not "may" be deleted: will be deleted. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
I think it's been totally deleted, so it needs to be started from scratch - if it's appropriate to deal with the issue in this way. Orsini 09:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest, Orsini? I'm afraid you've caught me at a bad time for it. I did suggest, as you saw at the top of this page, under the heading "Minor formatting", where I did my very best to babysit this RFC to one that would not have to be deleted. Anynobody had pursued reasonable dispute resolution, Smee had not. Note that according to the rules, dispute resolution must be done by two editors, and must be seen to have been done, in the RFC itself, in the form of diffs, under the heading "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". I tried to explain how vital this was, and repeatedly warned Smee and Anynobody about the 48-hour rule. First I tried to get Anynobody to keep it in his userspace, to give time for the matter to be taken care of; indeed at one point I boldly moved it there myself; he would have none of it. I explained to Smee what was wrong with the diffs he presented as dispute resolution — I quote myself:
The links at "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" are no good, to put it brutally. Posting warning templates on JA's page certainly doesn't qualify as attempted dispute resolution. (Didn't I tell you once that it was frowned on?) Dispute resolution means a bona fide attempt at reaching out, and I think you may be too upset with JA to be the best person for it. Suggestion: try asking Jossi, who knows the ropes, to contact JA and try to talk with him about Anynobody's concerns. (Yes, I know there's little time for that... people do tend to run short of time at this point. The way it's looking now, practically any admin will delete the page after 48 hours, if JA requests it.)
The links that were there when I deleted the RFC were no better. So, you ask, can I suggest alternative ways of resolving the dispute? Yes: try mediation. If anybody involved in this dispute wants further admin advice, I have to recommend you to ask someone else. I'm all talked out. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
Talked out as you may now be, your efforts in spelling out things so concisely above are appreciated, and have not been wasted. Thank you for your reply. Best wishes, Orsini 13:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Deletionism is the Only Valid View

Character Sketch sat there as vandalism (not vandalized, but vandalism) with clean up tags on it for a good, long time. I don't know why I didn't delete it and create a new article so as to obliterate the history, but I suppose it was so that I could make a point about how more junk needs deleting and starting over. A valid subject does not warrant leaving garbage in place. Geogre 13:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (Addendum: it's also at a position against Wikipedia naming conventions. It soooo should have been deleted when it was a dirty joke. Not now, of course.)

Wikify! Cleanup! Replace deprecated template! Fix some spelling errors! Where would we be without the wikignomes! By the time I got to the people who changed the whole example sketch to "I like pussy" or "I like cheeseburger", I had every sympathy. They sure didn't make it any worse. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Yeah. It started as original essay with incorrect information, then got labelled a bunch, then got turned into "I like pussy," and that was "cleaned up" to "cheeseburgers." An analytical essay? Huh? Mine's not good, mind you, but I also don't think we especially need an article on what a character sketch is. A character sketch is a ... sketch ... of ... a character. Geogre 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought of plumping it up with a bit of Pope? Remember the characters of women? I often quote "Some women have no character at all" to myself, in my head, when I catch myself with my hand in the salmiak jar. :-) Bishonen | talk 04:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
That's true, although, I suppose, to be nice about it, the "character sketch" is probably more common and better known as the "memories of Local Person" in the newspaper and the "portrait of Grotesque" that creative writing classes assign, so it would be a little mean to put in Atticus or Sporus or any of the women who have no characters in the Epistle to a Lady. Now, for an article on character, it would be so in. Geogre 12:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and ewwwww! for any candy that is only candy with the proper chemical added. Geogre 13:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Sorry to disappear into the ozone last quarter. Life gets complicated! Thanks for your input on the deletion vote on my user page. I appreciate the support for our little creative effort, even though it went nowhere. Even though my time is limited, I did manage to do some archiving and ran my watchlist during the last week. Some important material was lost to vandalism, so I see that things have not really changed much. I will not be around much for the forseeable future as I will be in Idaho for the next couple of weeks. Best Wishes. WBardwin 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to you, and your friends, for a reply. In looking things over (I really was out of the wiki-loop), the revelations about User:Essjay has shaken things up here. I had a good opinion of him/her in our limited contact, and appreciated his/her contributions. I see that User:Dmcdevit, who I "talk" with regularly, seems to have taken some personal responsibility for the situation, as he had recommended Essjay for additional responsibilities. This is so very unfortunate for all sincere editors here -- and for the encyclopedia. How are the administrators dealing with the issue? Is there anyway we peons could help? Best........ WBardwin 01:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
We're all peons here, W. I have little idea what goes on in the higher echelons. As many people are fond of pointing out, with a triumph I never quite understood, WP:NOT a democracy. Bishzilla has the little arbcom in her pocket, but, heck, that's her, not me. As usual with the latest scandal, there was a furore (here and here), and then it died down. The big difference is that the outside world is a lot more interested (not in a good way) this time. :-( Let's see, what else. Oh, yes, Jimbo Wales has proposed a "verified credentials" scheme.[51] If that means an enforced release of our real identities on the internets, I'm out of here, personally—I'm funny that way. But, perhaps strangely, I haven't followed the case closely. All the little scandals are going on as usual, and claiming (wasting) the usual too-much-time. Bishonen | talk 02:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Evidence

I know you didn't mean to, but I think mistakently labeled InShaneee as blocking Worldtraveller's account in your evidence page. As you can see by the block log, [52] InShaneee never blocked Worldtraveller directly, only indirectly when he was a IP on January 2 i think this is the log. I came to request you actually change the title of the section of your evidence page to "InShaneee's block of Worldtraveller', 3 January 2007" to "InShaneee's block of 81.178.208.69, 2 January 2007", because while the fact that it was Worldtraveller behind the IP, InShaneee never blocked Worldtraveller directly. Thanks! — Moe 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hi, Moe. Did I refer to the wrong block log? That wouldn't surprise me, but I can't find where I refer to a log for the 24-hour January block at all. If I did, can you tell me where, please? As for changing the heading, or referring to WT by his (varying) IP, no, I'd rather not. I call the user--the person--Worldtraveller throughout--it's not a mistake, but rather a mark of respect. I don't think it has any potential for misunderstanding, either, since I don't discuss the circumstances of InShaneee's block of the anonymous editor at all (if I had, I would have gone into the IP thing.) I have assumed WT himself and others will do that sufficiently, and also canvass the IP thing to the point of boredom and beyond--the arbcom doesn't have any realistic chance to miss it. I discuss the aftermath. (Same reasoning with A Link to the Past, btw--I don't address the reasons for the block, I assume others will). I don't want that heading changed. But thanks for bringing it up for consideration! I appreciate your scrupulousness in taking it to me, rather than changing it yourself. (P. S. Wrong date? Weird. Thanks.) Bishonen | talk 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
Well, since it technically WT's IP and the section is accuratly describing everything else for the most part, I guess it doesn't hurt anything to say that it was in fact WT blocked instead of the IP. I just thought for the sake of accuracy it should be changed *shrug* no matter. Yeh, my scrupulousness is shocking too considering how many bold things I do without discussing it first :) Cheers! — Moe 04:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to response from CBDunkerson (eom)

  • Eom? Is that like "burp" or "yum" or "excuse me?" It really should be. Geogre 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me butting in here, but I think you may have misread CBD's original comment. He was indeed defending you against Tony's ridiculous attack. (and, Geogre, if you really don't know, eom means "end of message"). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And I always tell my students never to write "In conclusion" in their conclusions: the words stop, so I figure that's the conclusion. Putting in a TLA to announce that there will be no more words is a bit weird, and saying, "This is all I have to say to you (link) and that's all I intend to say (eom)" is a bit...oh, let's call it brusque. Geogre 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And I think you may have read it too superficially, so we're even. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
My paraphrase of CBD's coment: "Boy Howdy it sure does look like them fellas are conspiring together in a nasty convoluted plot with the sole goal of getting Inshaneee in trouble for some reason, but the AGF policy says we have to pretend it's just a crazy coink-i-dink, yup." Very inspiring stuff. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You go from strength to strength, dear boy. Bishonen | talk 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Now wait a minute. First, about "eom". It's an "email"-ism, sort of like the old radio-speak where when one person is done talking they say "over" and people take turns talking. When one is done, they say "over and out". In the radio world this was because the communication channel was half duplex and both folks couldn't talk at once. In email, it's been adopted as a courtesy to indicate a subject only message is not a mistake. This was only a poke to turn Bishonen's "you have new messages" indicator on. "Brusque" only if you don't understand the context. In context, it's meant to be courteous. I'm not CBD, and haven't interacted with him a lot, but my assumption is he meant this as a courtesy, not to be brusque.
Second, about CBD's original comment. I think Bunchofgrapes's paraphrase is nowhere near accurate. I'm not sure you've noticed, but I am one of the folks who objected to his block of WT. I'm on your side in this. But this doesn't mean everything CBD says is evil. My paraphrase would be "Hey, Tony, your interpretation of this requires a bizarre convoluted nasty plot that no reasonable person would imagine could possibly be the case." His phrasing was a little oblique (and he's later apologized about this as well), but IMO the basic message was supportive. There may indeed be more history here than I'm seeing, but this is how I'm interpreting this exchange. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope it didn't look like anybody here was being brusque to you, in any case. I appreciate your taking the trouble to post. Bishonen | talk 02:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
I think it's sort of cool that we have someone who, when presented with a clear choice, will reliably choose to defend the greater of two evils. If nothing else, he's a handy moral barometer to have around, in the sense of a compass that always points South. Nandesuka 02:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
/Bishzilla laughs majestically, whole page shakes and rumbles. Little Nandesuka be first to enjoy Bishzilla new SUPER POWER SIG! See how cool: Bishzilla ROARR!! 03:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
(→Netscott) bows down to Bishzilla's impressive signature. (→Netscott) 04:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I followed a link from the Arbcom case here and noticed this discussion. The link and 'eom' thing is my standard way of handling comments on my talk page... I respond there and post a link so that the person is notified of the response, but the discussion is not split between two pages. The 'eom' is to clarify that it is not an error that no further message is included below the title... which used to be an extremely common usage, but is apparently a bit dated. Sorry if it was unclear, perhaps I should link the 'eom' to End of Message.
On the other bit, I had already explained a few times that I was trying to underline how outlandish Tony's accusation was. If you choose not to accept that then there seems little I can do about it.
Finally, thank you Rick - for demonstrating the sort of character and true meaning of AGF, even towards those you disagree with, which all users should aspire to. --CBD 22:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy link

Bishonen, you might want to look at this, since it appears that once of your posts to AN/I was wiped. [53] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I was the last to know what damage I had done :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your help is needed

Hey Bish, I'm not sure if you got my reply for the e-mail. So anyway long story short, going back to several other similar cases of block-evasion/ban-evasion such as User:Nationalist, User:PoolGuy, etc, it is pretty apparent that there isn't a great distinction between an indef. block and community ban. Obviously, circumventing a ban and then getting rewarded for it just seems illogical. Seriously, this is a joke. But anyway, worst case scentario I guess is to go straight to arbCom and get them to define an actual distinction between block and ban. Oh and btw did Crum e-mail youb back? Your thoughts on this?--Certified.Gangsta 10:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. Yes, he replied, it's me that's been real busy, sorry. But I saw the lates post on your page... it's a relief. Bishonen | talk 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks Bishy. On a related note, do you think it's necessary to protect his talkpage too? Given that there are some crazy wikilawyering and that unblock requests have been turned down more than 4 times in his previous accounts combined.--Certified.Gangsta 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't. Protecting the talkpage of a blocked user is a very extreme action, it should only be done in cases of extreme and ongoing disruption. On a semi-related note, I commented in that weird half-archived thread on ANI, don't know if you saw it? Bishonen | talk 23:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
Yup I just did. Thank you :)--Certified.Gangsta 23:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The gargle has worked

[54] a blessed miracle - he has found his voice. Let's hope he loses it again soon for all the good it does wiki-kind! Giano 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Adm... admonish..? Oh, piss. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] FA FAQ

Hi Bishonen. You dropped out of the discussion after the first night re changes to WIAFA. I wrote up this because the idea of an FAQ for FAs met with some approval later. Any comments welcome. Obviously, we need to be very careful about launching new wording for FAs, but I think there are some sound ideas written down here, that need to be written down. Marskell 22:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

I simply hadn't read the talk page since you posted that - rather busy at work. Yes, it is helpful. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for more, then. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] User:His excellency

Bishonen, given your prior participation in discussions relative to this user, you should be aware of this thread. Cheers. (→Netscott) 17:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott, I saw it, actually. I haven't decided whether to comment, but I've asked them to move the proposal. It should go on WP:CN. Bishonen | talk 17:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
I understand your reservations. If the IP is indeed HE then of course such disruption is getting a bit out of hand and makes me hesitant as well. Good on you for pointing out WP:CN as well. Thanks for the response. See you. (→Netscott) 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of indef-blocking user:His excellency - His excellency has indeed gone too far, even after the ArbCom decision. These repeated cases of vitriolic harassment are intolerable. A clear consensus has also emerged at the CN discussion. Rama's arrow 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A favor

Hi. I know that User:Smee respects your opinion so I am asking if you would be interested in helping out with my dispute with Smee over what I consider his WP:DE. I have sincerely tried to get him to stop but this is ongoing and just cropped up again. I would like to get a 3rd party involved, not as a precursor to some time-wasting User RfC, but to genuinely handle this dispute. Here is the latest:

  1. Once upon a time there was a small article about a small anti-Scientology propaganda piece called The Bridge (film). It looked like this not too long ago. I had been editing in the article almost since its creation. Smee has been there a while too, we met there in fact and Smee gave me a Barnstar for being nice to him (that is because I am nice, at least until it is proven that the intention to be nice is most definitely not shared).
  2. Smee made a series of edits to give what I consider undue prominence to the dedication in what I consider an effort to make the article itself into an anti-Scientology propaganda piece. Here and then with a screenshot here. There are other similar efforts by Smee at what I consider propagandizing both in that article and in others but I am not addressing Smee's POV-pushing here, I am addressing his WP:DE in pursuit of it.
  3. Ten minutes after opening a topic in talk, I removed the undue prominence and replaced it with a mention of the dedication in the lead; a very fair compromise, I thought.
  4. One hour later, Smee reverted me without discussion even though I had specifically invited discussion in talk. He claimed in that edit summary I lacked consensus when, in actual fact, his "dedicating the article" is what really lacked consensus. He claimed I failed to discuss when it was him that had failed to discuss. Smee continued his improper edit-warring (history) and only stopped because I asked a neutral 3rd party to weigh in. When the neutral party also objected (more as a "film person" I think than as someone sensitive to the use of this project as a propaganda medium but that speaks to the fact that propagandists violate simple standards of article creation that are evident even without considering POV issues), Smee self-reverted with a deprecating remark. Another editor with media experience came in and agreed on non-POV issues that Smee's edit is inappropriate for the article.

In my opinion, Smee's behavior in this incident is disrespectful and disruptive. Bishonen, I could show you a number of similar incidents but this one shows my problem just fine, I think. It really is a problem; not my POV, not me whining, etc. Smee makes inappropriate edits then edit wars over them rather then discuss and continues to edit war until a 3rd party or parties come in and back me up (and they always seem to back me up). I do not mind that Smee does not want to take my word when I say that one of his edits will not stand. That is his right. I do want him to stop edit-warring to reinsert the inappropriate POV edit until the issue is resolved. The disputed material should be removed to talk and discussed and remain removed until the issue is resolved, not reinserted repeatedly in some phony "compromise" (a term he likes to use as he reinserts). That is my desired outcome. His agreement to to so. Would you please help us? Thanks. --Justanother 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Justanother. I think in all honesty it's somebody else's turn to deal with youse guys. I'm off to a rest home for a while. Why not ask Jossi? He even offered to help mediate between you, didn't he? Braver man than me. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Understand completely and do not hold it in the least against you. I will "shop it around" a bit. Thanks and enjoy the jello - I hear the orange flavor is particularly good! Take care. --Justanother 20:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please respond

to this. --Ideogram 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

You are not helping Gangsta any by letting him think he is right. Surely you know that if it goes to ArbCom he will almost certainly be sanctioned. You can save everyone a lot of trouble by getting him to back off now. --Ideogram 04:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can you please explain to me how Bishonen is somehow responsible for this individual? El_C 04:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen is just about Gangsta's only friend at Wikipedia. If you look at the thread on AN/I, you will see that she angrily defended him when I mentioned the fake banner incident. Gangsta interpreted this to mean "you're the one who is stalking, disrupting, bullying, and POV pushing all over the place. Bishonen made that quite clear." I asked Bishonen to confirm or deny that this is really what she meant to say; she has not replied yet. I am surprised you are not aware of this. Have you read the entire thread? --Ideogram 04:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What is: "Given the concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop" supposed to mean, specifically? El_C 04:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, El C. In the workshop for the RFAr on InShaneee, Tony Sidaway offered the "Proposed finding of fact" that Worldtraveller had stalked and personally attacked InShaneee, and that "statements by some experienced Wikipedians" had encouraged him to do so.[55] The only link given by Tony for that encouragement was to a statement by me. Tony and Ideogram went on to discuss how my "bad advice" was something of an excuse for Worldtraveller (who protested indignantly at what he called "condescending nonsense"). I'm assuming that workshop thread was the concern Ideogram had in mind. I didn't reply to the Proposed finding. Tony had linked to some of my best work, so there didn't seem much to add. Perhaps Ideogram was worried I might not have seen it, and prodded me on ANI and here on my page to get a dialogue going? I don't think that would be fruitful or constructive though. (I have some prior experience of attempting to dialogue with him.) El C, please don't encourage him to post here. Ideogram, please don't post here. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I understand your position and share your indignation. El_C 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A present

I've just chucked these out of Blenheim Palace and orphaned them. I have rather neglected poor old Blenheim of late (it had even acquired an info box!) - so you can have them! Giano
I've just chucked these out of Blenheim Palace and orphaned them. I have rather neglected poor old Blenheim of late (it had even acquired an info box!) - so you can have them! Giano
A very large vat is necessary. It's a pleasing response. Geogre 10:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
A very large vat is necessary. It's a pleasing response. Geogre 10:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Smee on ANI

Here - your comments are welcome. Thanks --Justanother 05:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do not revert war

--Ideogram 18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One rv is a revert war now? How interesting. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
One RV should be enough, I would think. People who want to see it or make it again and again are obviously having some sort of adverse pscyhopharmaceutical reaction. I mean, Ideogram must be talking about the movie, right? There's no context to what he says. Or is there a war at donut, which is often misspelled as "donot." Donuts are for eating, and they make very poor implements of war. (I would rather not say more now. I have many dark theories about the evil genius that we need to get rid of. See me on secret.agent.irc.) Geogre 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image help?

Allo.
So, I just picked an admin at random for some help with something pretty small.
(btw, you may want to tell bishzilla to be more carefully when handling editors. It took me a LONG time to de-flattenify myself after I got squashed!)
Anyways, I noticed that the sata logo was a jpg, and there's a notice requesting that someone replace it with a svg or png image. I'm veeery new to svg, and have zero knowledge of how to upload images, do copyright stuff, yadda yadda yadda.
So, anyways, I just used inkscape to essentially trace the original logo, also exported as a png, and uploaded both to my school account. Any chance you upload this and/or this, if they are suitable replacements? (And [56] is just a link to a blown-up svg version, if that's necessary for anything)
This request also goes out to any of the many editors who tend to read this talk page. (except bishzilla. I don't want to be squished again. It messes with my hair.) Bladestorm 20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know how to upload, but am a bit fuzzy about image formats and their appropriateness, also whether the way you made yours is ok copyright-wise, so I hereby request some image whizz to do it. Wait, I'll have Bishzilla request it with her new power sig, so nobody has a chance of MISSING IT. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Zilla kindly request page visitor to help the little Bladestorm! Bishzilla ROARR!! zilla4admin 21:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Transcendental Meditation

Can't help but notice, after being away for awhile, that all of Askolnick's criticism of TM has virtually disappeared from this page and what is left is pretty much a promotional piece for the practice. Most unfortunate, and not up to Wiki standards IMO Gatoclass 07:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GimmeBot

Regarding this, yes and no. Most article talk pages have been GimmeBotified, but not all; the (temporary) instructions are hard to nail down during the transition because there are several different scenarios. The bot moves the facfailed nomination to an archive, closes and tags it, clears the redirect, leaving a link to the old nom on the cleared fac page, so that a subsequent nominator will find the old failedfac already linked on the new fac page (hence, "retain"). "Add" will go away once botification is finished, and retain will be accurate. While the bot work is underway, I've been watching each fac nom to make sure all the pieces are in the right place. I'm going to be traveling; if you want to tweak further to cover all the bases until the bot work is done, Gimmetrow can help. Eventually, the instructions will have to be rewritten, eliminating any mention of add, move or archive, as the bot will have done all of that in advance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the same phenomenon in the progression of Microsoft Operating systems: the "easier to use" something gets, the harder it is to understand. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GrownUpAndWise

I was just looking into reporting that account as a disruptive SPA after that brutal post on BD's page but I see that you are already on top of it. --Justanother 14:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I can do that kind of thing straight from the rest home, no problem. [/bishonen punches PDA savagely with a shaking hand, orderlies converge on her in a pincer movement.] Bishonen | talk 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
Nurse Ratched arrives, quickly discovers where /bishonen has been hiding her meds, and casually injects her with a powerful tranquilizer while marking her chart for ECT tomorrow. Ratchet does a quick headcount and departs to care to other patients. /bishonen continues her careless slumber. At least until her insurance runs out. Sweet dreams. --Justanother 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah yeah. History delete complete (I hope), check it out. I have e-mailed the page owner. Minitrue 21:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
Looks good, thanks. Double plus good. --Justanother 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Traditionally one tries to resolve things outside of arbitration before bringing it there. My attempt to talk to you about this was ignored. I am still willing to talk about this. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignored? You say the thing which is not. [57] Bishonen | talk 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

I still see no impasse in our discussion that warranted arbitration, I responded quickly to that[58]. However it is done, and I will gladly deal with this matter in such a moderated environment. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any ideas gang: active discussion moved to bottom of page

[59] Guess whose use page it was? It is not finished, I do not vouch for it, as you all know I have loads of these pages on the go at the same time, some take months to finish. There are times when I would love access to check user! All suggestions welcome Giano 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Bishonen | talk 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks Sweatpea! I didn't know if we were allowed ot do thatas others had edited since- amazing no one noticed the categories were al lackinng their final ] - I must put my banner on it now. Giano 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a limit to how much crap we have to put up with. The IP obviously knows it's bad behaviour, too. Look at its contribs! [60] Would a complete newbie know to go sniffing round userpages, and have such an idea? No. As you say, and as I mention in the revert edit summary, there's no knowing how correct your info is at this stage. The IP certainly can't know it. I checked the later edits, they were only corrections of stuff the IP had messed up, except for the addition of one category (which I put back). Bishonen | talk 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Interesting I placed one of my beware tags this is unreliable and unfinished on it on the 17th January [61] several days before the "Anon placed [62] on 24th January in mainspace! So Anon knew exactly what he was doing! Giano 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is Allston - I've never heard of it? Giano 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that having Checkuser would not help; this is too old, I'm pretty sure. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Matt. Yes, I have informed myself, and it is in fact too old. Pity, that. I can't swallow this as being a a good-faith attempt to improve the mainspace — I think it's pure malice. Bishonen | talk 02:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
The intentional pushing of a button, yes. And by someone who knows it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
A random thought from the gallery: should the edits be deleted, as in essence they are a copyright violation as the edit by the IP doesn't attribute Giano as the author, as required by the GFDL? With Bramham Park, the only edits between the IP adding the info and Bish reverting it are minor fixes, and in essence they are all copyvios. Thoughts? Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC) retreats back into the shadows and rejoins other people who watch Giano's contribs to his userspace to see what article will be the next FA :)
You mean I should delete all revisions after MortimerCat? That's a thought. I didn't think of the credit thing and the GFDL—I assumed Giano's work was in fact free to steal once he'd saved it anywhere at all on Wikipedia—I removed it only on the principle that it was unsourced and unreliable and the author had even said so. (I won't deny that I wanted to remove it, but the attribution angle didn't occur to me.) OK, I'll remove those suckers. I was lucky the case was so simple—I don't know what I would have done if somebody else had made substantial additions after the IP edit. Been petrified with indecision, probably. As for the next FA, I believe Giano has foresworn producing any more of those, after recent scarring experiences of WP:FAR.[63] Bishonen | talk 08:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for all the support here! I didn't realise people watched my uses space so much - I shall have to watch some of the less than flattering things I write about some buildings there. I'm not bothered too much about credit - but I do like a little acknowledgement sometimes. Also I do like to check my spelling and dates etc before going into mainspace. I'm afraid, you will all have a very long wait though for the next FA - you have seen the last of those. I write only in my style, in the way I think is correct for an encyclopedia. It would be a waste of time FACing my pages as I am reliably informed via the FARC page that they would not pass today. I refuse to ref such well known facts as "During the 17th century, many architects studying in Italy learned of Palladio's work" - as I have been asked to do on FARC. Finally, this classic comment here referring to my writing - ""In 1570 Palladio published his book I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura, inspiring architects across Europe." Inspired who? According to what researcher? Needs citation, otherwise is original research." made me realise that if I have to look up every obvious and accepted fact, then I would be unable to write an FA again anyway, as any spontaneity and freedom of expression in a page would be gone. They would become so dull no-one would ever bother to read to the end. While I am happy to ref a Prince of Monaco sleeping with his mother-in-law (because not a lot of people know that!) - and it makes a dull section on history page more interesting and fun - I am not about to become a "Master of the Obvious" referencing every well known fact just to please a few style and rule obsessive zealots . I feel wikipedia is so full of little stubs begging to be improved, and subjects on which nothing is written - we could all more profitably spend our time attending to these things, rather than attacking the better pages.
I know some other former FA writes such as Geogre and Bishonen share some of my views - which is a pity as they have produced some of the better and more intellectual FAs essential for a encyclopedia of any worth and value. I 100% believe references should be listed and I'm glad to see their are still some very good editors turning out first rate FAs but there is also a worrying amount of FAs on pop music and computer type things sourced entirely from the internet - not in my view a static medium. I would like to see more FAs sharing sources with not only the internet but also books with few pictures and 973 pages.Giano 09:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
("V=IR? Do you have a citation to this so-called Ohm's Law? I see that you have a link, but you need to have a citation, and then this 'R=V/I' needs another citation. You can't expect us to accept this original research.") Geogre 10:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Sadly User: Ohm would probably have been banned from editing such pages, because of his insistance on own research and citing himself! Giano 10:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in this. I think it's a really dirty thing to do. I ran checkuser on the IP at Bish's request, but it's too old. Raul654 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about that anymore, as you very well know Raul! Giano 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been considering pushing an article of my own to FA level sometime in the next couple of months, and I have to say that what I have been reading about the FA reviewers demanding a footnote reference after every sentence is a serious deterrent to my wanting to do that. This page is probably not where I should be saying it, because I'm preaching to the choir here, but if our most motivated authors are choosing not to create featured content because of idiosyncrasies of the selection process, that is a serious problem. Newyorkbrad 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there is nowher else to say it, unless you want to be shouted down, we are clearly in a minority - so we teo choices write FAs to the standards of others, write mere ordinary pages to out own standards. I am choosing the latter. Giano 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What they are doing, so far as I can see, is to produce their usual excellent articles, but they are just not bothering to ask for the shiny star to be affixed to them. But Medieval cuisine shows how it should be. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And what are you going to expect other people (who aren't experts in Medieval cuisine) to do when someone else edits your article, and follows your style of not citing enough? You don't own them, you know. Say you get three edits adding or changing information that seem reasonably likely; two are good, one is bad. How do you expect someone not yourself to know which of the three to revert and which to keep, if you don't give them sources to compare to? This is not just a hypothetical case, I just blocked an editor who had fun doing exactly that, inserting minor inaccuracies in uncited articles. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sneaky_vandalism - he was doing this since June 2006. If he had done this to something like Jenna Jameson, which is cited up the wazoo, his edits would be easily checked against reliable sources. As is, he got away with it for months. Do you really want him to be able to do that to your featured articles? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribution really helps an article, it is not just policy but a good idea. It allows editors who do not know the subject to competently judge the merits of the contributions of others. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
(ed conf) For an example, a sentence in Medieval cuisine implies strongly that olive oil was a recommended drink! Is that vandalism? Don't know - maybe it is vandalism, maybe it is a poor turn of phrase, maybe it is even accurate. How is a humble mouse like myself supposed to know where to go to check the veracity of such a statement? Am I just supposed to take the article's word for it? Or am I supposed to read all 6 books mentioned in the references, with no indication of where to look, just in case one of them actually says that? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you could have tried to simply let your gaze descend to the closest footnote following that statement and checked those pages out. The footnote refers to 4 pages from Scully. Is it really that baffling that two paragraphs and a quote can be covered by such a modest reading assignment?
Peter Isotalo 00:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
And since Bish's talkpage seems to be a more relevant place than the article talkpage to voice concerns about an article issue, here's the passage causing such consternation: "For most medieval Europeans, it [beer] was a humble brew compared with common southern drinks and cooking ingredients, such as wine or olive oil."
Peter Isotalo 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course obscure facts like that should be referenced, no one (certainly not me) is arguing otherwise - It is well known facts that can easily be confirmed if not already known and taken for granted that do not need to be cited. Anyway you can have FAs anyway you like them, because the rules no longer apply to me, I am free of FAs and over zealous rules invented often by people who have no need to apply them to their own work - I am talking about proper FAs not articles on "here today gone tomorrow" movie stars and pop songs written using 101 "here today gone tomorrow" internet sites each themselves of dubious quality, Giano 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh my, what if someone who's not an expert edits the article? Then it won't be reliable? What if they edit and don't give footnotes? Those arguments are, at their best, an argument against Wikipedia. After all, what do we do when someone edits the article on Bob Roberts? What do we do when someone edits the article on George W. Bush? Do we have to have footnotes to know the difference? Hey, what if someone edits the footnotes! What if "someone" inserts a bogus reference? Do you think it's even remotely possible to turn out a heavily footnoted article where the footnotes refer to fictitious books? This argument is against an encyclopedia anyone can edit. I also love the implication that someone is advocating not footnoting enough. In fact, I advocate appropriate references. My version of appropriate means some education in the reader. My version means no footnotes, all parentheticals. Your arguments are really, really off the mark and weak. Geogre 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say anon's argument is very much in line with the spirit of Wikipedia, and are rather compelling. Attribution is important. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
We are going arownd in ever increasing circles, so I am going away, this is becoming boring, I'll come back when it gets interesting again. Giano 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for not keeping Giano properly amused. I can tell you what to do when someone adds a dubious claim to a well cited article. Check their edits against the citation. If they don't agree, the claim is wrong. That works equally well if the claim is bogus or if the source is. That way we don't have to worry whether the editor has a doctorate in theology or is merely diligent at using Google; we don't care if they're an expert, merely if their sources are. If they don't give a citation, that stands out as something that should be cited, tagged, or removed. Wikipedia is not reliable in and of itself, specifically because anonymous mice can edit - and don't think I'm saying that's a bad thing, that's the reason I am allowed to be here, after all. However, it does mean that proper attribution is the only thing we have that can give articles that reliability. That doesn't mean citing every sentence, but it does mean that when someone doubts a fact, it is only assuming good faith to believe that doubt, and be able to reference that fact. Frankly, assuming that every educated reader already knows that a 1570 book inspired architects across Europe is common knowledge is attributing quite a lot to common knowledge. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
That is not the meaning of "common knowledge" on Wikipedia. Please see this userpage. Bishonen | talk 21:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
I suppose I have more faith in the power of a college degree, but knowing that Palladianism came from Palladio only required a single Art History class for me. I would have known Palladianism anyway, a bit after my sophomore year, when I hit it in a History of England class. I would have learned it as a senior, if I hadn't learned it as a sophomore or a junion, when I took a class in Europe Between the Wars. I have "learned" that fact a dozen times in college. We do not cite everything. We do rely on good faith. Remember that WP:AGF refers to articles, not taggers or blocks or other things. In fact, Wikipedia was the gamble built on the assumption that more people wanted correct information than wanted to vandalize, and we are extremely susceptible to dishonest editors. We always will be. That's the nature of the game. If people want to read undergraduate research papers, they can, but that's not the standard of any encyclopedia. I find them unspeakably insulting. "The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is named after Heizenberg (note)" makes me want to slap someone. How stupid do they think I am? How stupid do they think readers are in general? How stupid are they that they had to go dig up a reference to assure themselves of that? Most articles have no citations. This is a good thing, generally. Those with unusual knowledge need references, but not stickypad citations. Geogre 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Everything must citable. That doesn't mean it needs to be cited. Some people have problem with this concept. As for what people think of our readers, my guess is that deep down, we all want the encyclopedia to be written for people like ourselves. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just looked in to see if the conversation had taken a perk, or anyone eloquent had looked in - No. So Bishonendearhart, do terminate this because it is going nowhere - we are all agreed we are done with FAs - can't be bothered with all the new malarky and claptrap far too stressful, and insulting to the intelligence. This moment in time heralds the beginning of a brave new era for Wikipedia the FAs of AnonEMouse (Jenna Jameson); LuciferMorgan's Christ Illusion and those of a similar mind-frame are obviously the way to go. Sadly my blood pressure these days does not allow for porn queens, and my interest in Christ is confined to mass and praying for eternal redemption - not that I'm admitting to a link between the two. I wish all the new FA writers well - but I can't agree with them, I shall not be joining them on the main page - I will be continuing in my own odd referencing ways - so I think all that needs to be said has been said. Giano 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • With respect, lowbrow or popular culture articles at FAs is not new. The very first archive of FA, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2003 and before, includes Leet, Have I Got News for You, Madonna (entertainer), and Sex Pistols. I have nothing but respect for the many FAs of Giano on European architecture, and Geogre on lesser known English wliterature, at a quick glance. I can only hope to eventually be as skilled and prolific. However, we need more good writing on any subject in the encyclopedia, including the ones that I or LuciferMorgan chose. If we have these subjects at all, they may as well be covered as well as possible, which, in the current way of doing things, means bringing them up to the standard of FA, which does seem to include citations. That is the current standard of the Wikipedia community, and it does have reasons behind it. (rephrased, with apologies) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 06:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here I am, up late to update DYK for the second time today (late both times because no-one else seems to want to do it, even though the next update page was ready to go ages ago) and what do I find? [64] This is not a featured article by any stretch, but it is a nice, concise article, culled from 4 (FOUR) consistent obituaries in broadsheet newspapers, and someone adds tags saying it does not have enough citations and needs cleanup.

Citations? CLEANUP?? Honestly. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moderated my comment above, now the balance of my equanimity has been restored. Obviously it is possible to add refs after every sentence (see John Inman) but I really don't see the point in this case. The only mildly difficult fact in Peter Prendergast (artist) is that he was "recognised as the leading landscape painter in Wales" (by whom? when?) but that is cited (and, on reflection, I suppose I ought to cite "the biggest man-made hole in Europe, like Breughel's Tower of Babel, but in reverse"). But "cleanup"? How, for goodness sake? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
PS - please don't stomp on me, Bishzilla!
Bishzilla stomp on tag spam.[65] bishzilla ROARR!! 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
As a point of reference, this article could be interesting to "the gang". Daniel Bryant 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to settle an argument with a friend about "dyke," so I looked at dyke. Citations all over the place and tags for "has no sources" to go with every one of them. On the other hand, there are articles like 1992 World Rally Championship season where there is only a box. What the hell is that? Is this a graphic novel or an encyclopedia? Why can't the "we need facts" jerks go beat up on the "here is a box and I cannot finish a sentence" yaboes? Utgard Loki 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC}
Oh Utgard, I do so agree with you. Giano 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I just go around all day, hitting the "Random" button. I recommend it to anyone. See what's really in Wikipedia. The #1 hit type is probably "footballer" -- usually either 2 lines or 2,000 -- and then "X is a place in Nation the end," and I'm not talking about those Census department things you see for US cities and towns, either. Then we get to the really stomach churning "This is a single by MinorBand released in RecentMonth and here is a picture of it." I released singles, an e.p., and an l.p. in a former band, and hell if I'd expect anyone to look them up here. What the heck could I say about them? "We released this, and it got played on about 110 radio stations, according to tracking reports. We sold all the copies we made of the first pressing, and that netted us a grand total of $280?" Bleck. Then again, I'm not a "footballer." Utgard Loki 12:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we have another truly delicious (fire-breathing, even) citation conflict brewing. Behold! That's what you get for mentioning an FA that doesn't have a citation per sentence...
Peter Isotalo 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Aloan should have known better than to mention it in the first place - it is like putting up an advert for a candy factory next to a wasp's nest. It only encourages them. I just wish they would write something interesting and show us all how it should be done - lead by example - Yes i know some of them do write and No, I don't want to be pointed to a page on porn stars, pop stars and fruits of said stars' labours - referenced entirely by equally dodgy internet sites Giano 19:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear - I didn't mean to poke the hornets nest. :( The people on the talk page need to read about the apocryphal Marie Therese/Marie Antoinette "cake" incident,[66][67] (brie?!) and watch the "I Know My Place" sketch.[68]

"I just wish they would write something interesting and show us all how it should be done" - quite. I just stumbled across Wilton House this morning. Such pearls before, um, I had better stop. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be nice to people: reply to AnonEMouse

Section break retained, obsolete rant removed. Thank you, AnonEMouse. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Continued

Just for chuckles, I think I should point out that I have never stated my credentials, and I hope to never do so. I have a job that some people assume implies those things, but I have said very, very little about that, wish I had said less, and Giano is an absolute cypher. He has never indicated so much that he has a job, much less what it is, and even less where he went to college and how long. The point being that, unlike quite a few people -- and particularly the people demanding to have us respect their authorit-ay, neither of us, and certainly not Bishonen, either, mentions credentials. We point to our work here at Wikipedia, which is a different thing, and then only, as Bishonen says, in exasperation. Since I arrived here, I've been annoyed by the pop obsessed younguns at Wikipedia shouting "amen" to each other. To me, this is a fight over whether we have articles on these subjects, not whether we have FA's on them. If we get articles on them, they're eligible if they can be properly discussed and analyzed. 90% of the time, they can't. Geogre 11:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, neither you nor Giano is listed at Category:Wikipedians with PhD degrees, so that's good. Utgard Loki 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC) M.S.
Is there a category for "You will have to work out for yourself whether this Wikipedian knows anything about anything"? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
What an enormity that is! A category populated by people using userboxes to self-identify their academic credentials is wrong on so many levels that one scarcely knows where to begin. I want an "it's the work, and it's always the work" box. Geogre 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I should have added a P.S., above. Yes, I am an elitest in many ways on content, but that's because I'm such a firm believer in the power of The People. Because I believe that the aggregation of humanity can achieve great things, I think it should never be allowed to settle for half-assed spitballs shot at the screen. I have never believed that anyone or anything "is owed" an article, nor that any contributor automatically has the right to write whatever she or he wishes. Everyone should write encyclopedic content, and I think everyone can. Therefore, "Mikey is a footballer with Slovak Spartan B Community Cultural Center Extension club" is bad. I would be insulting the author if I said, "That's all he can write and all he has to write." Geogre 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taj Mahal

[69] Any ideas would be gratefully received. Cheers. --Joopercoopers 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Taj Mahal"..? Named after that Indian restaurant in Slough, wasn't it?[70] Bishonen | talk 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Don't be so silly Bishonen, it was erected by the Indian Government (circa 1979) to provide a photo-shoot opportunity for the late Princess Diana, and also as a place for very unlovely, and usually ugly people to pose for what they imagine are romantic holiday snaps to bore their friends with at home. The latter should be banned from being photographed anywhere, in fact they should be made to put plastic buckets on their heads when leaving their houses - so they don't spoil other people's photographs taken for the architecture. Giano 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict]Ah! thank you O wise one. :-) Joopercoopers 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh... Cthulhu, right? Bishonen | talk 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Aaaahhh! Where Cthulhu? bishzilla ROARR!! 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Again

Having trouble with another admin - Mel Etitis - who thinks you are not allowed to delete things from your talk page. Rarelibra 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not entitled to remove comments by other users from article talk pages, if I understand this correctly. El_C 23:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This had to do with my own talk page. Rarelibra 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I stand collected. El_C 03:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen - are you saying now that I cannot delete the conversation from my talk page once it is complete? Because as far as I am concerned, it is complete, and there isn't anything derogatory or incorrect with me removing it... ? Rarelibra 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you can, but it's rude. That's not such a mysterious idea, is it? Some things are allowed but are nevertheless derogatory. You won't get punished for them, but they won't do anything for your reputation, either. Lots of things are like that in real life, right? For example, it's not illegal to speak unpleasantly to your neighbors, but it's not nice either. That's how it is with this. To uphold your reputation, to be pleasant, the optimal way to handle your talkpage is to leave stuff on it until you archive the whole page (or archive all but the most recent of it—that's what I do). Replying to messages is nice too. But none of us are always nice, I guess /looks through own talkpage, blushes slightly at sight of roaring dinosaur sockpuppet/, especially when the other person is being rude. I'd hardly bother to reply to a template, I must say. I might even remove it, with an informative edit summary. But it would take a lot before I removed a real human message. Bishonen | talk 01:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
That's where we differ, then. I have been military for 20 years... thus, I learn the "regulations" and what is "permissible" (plus, operate on the oh-so-popular "better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission"). I'm quite sure that if I met someone in real life and had a discussion, then found out our "wiki" identities, I wouldn't change my real-life opinion of them (I see them as separate). But I am also a person who doesn't care if I "step on someone's toes" as long as I am within the rules. So whether or not it is "rude" is all within perception (but a permissible perception! that is why I kept attempting to correct the admin, and solicited your support). He tried to insist that I must keep it on my talk page, when I knew that I didn't have to. You see, my poison is that I am intelligent and operate on logic... thus, the neighbor example for me is that when my neighbor's dog took a dump in my lawn, it is logical that they should have just cleaned it up (I don't own a dog, so it is extremely obvious). I shouldn't have to knock on the door and ask nicely, nor remind them (as it is a duty of owning the dog)... so my answer? I put the crap in a plastic bag and attached it to their doorknob. Problem solved, and surprisingly no more dog crap in my lawn... am I worried about my "rep" with them? Actually, NO. Do looks of distaste bother me? NO. If that makes me rude, so be it (it isn't against the law to be so!). If I remove a human message it means (1) that I read it, (2) that I no longer need it (unlike what I have archived or saved currently - for projects or problems I am still trying to finish, or research, or work out), or (3) that I don't care for it. Does that make me rude? Maybe. I don't care what people think about what I do as long as it is within the law/rule. The times I am outside or violate, I am humble enough to "take my lumps" and admit my mistakes (as I have been blocked for 3RR, etc, of course). So if a guy with a short haircut comes up to you in Chicago and tells you to "put the &$*#! cigarette out" in a harsh tone while you are puffing away underneath a "no smoking" sign, well... it's probably me, and I don't care if you think I am rude. :) So don't take it personal, but I think the conversation is done and I will probably clean my talk page. :) Rarelibra 02:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That suits me. I've been in academe for x years, learning to go by logic and analogy, and I have some trouble with yours. You give several examples of how you think it's proper to be rude for a reason, yet round off your message with rudeness for no reason: telling me the conversation is done, as if I had been needlessly bothering you with my unsolicited opinion. That's more like telling a person chewing gum under a no-smoking sign to put their &$*#! cigarette out. I don't take it personally, you understand, it's just the logic of it. Bishonen | talk 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Point taken. :) Hope to chat with you soon... serious. Rarelibra 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Бинг-Банг

But can be found here. El_C 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Er... anything you say. Bing bang, dear. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Or, in the immortal words of Leslie Phillips, "I say! Ding dong!" -- ALoan (Talk) 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
How's your Hebrew today, ALoan? Bishonen | talk 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Fair to non-existent. But surely this is Cyrillic? Is there a kind of Russo-Slavonic Hebrew written thusly? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
That would be בינג-באנג ! El_C 23:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Or, in Swedish, bork bork! Bishonen | talk 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Reminds me of my children's school concerts Giano 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
How wonderful that they're so talented! Bishonen | talk 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Is this some kind of Eurovision thing? "Oh, Бинг-Банг, bing bang, ding dong, a בינג-באנג, bork bork!" A sure-fire winner, or my name is not Mikhail Yosef Caneskisson-Smythe. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've listened to the song about 40,000 times now and I'm still not sick of it! El_C 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
<smacks self about the head> I am slow on the uptake, but have just read the relevant articles. The "boyakasha" should have been a give-away. Sigh. His cousin is a professor of psychology, you know. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the Korki Buchek entry is extremely informative. We can probably FAC-it-up with little effort. El_C 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't hold a candle to Swedish Dr. Bombay. Hear and see his masterpiece of inappropriate stereotyping Rice and Curry on Youtube! Oh noes a redlink. Anyway, the Dr. is according to Wikipedia also famous in Japan (I admit this was news to me) as Carlito. Bishonen | talk 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Oh, wow, Elsie, I can't believe it! Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is already on WP:FAC! You'd better go give your expert opinion. Bishonen | talk 04:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Keeping sewage out of the wine

Hi - I'm interested in any comments you (or anyone watching this page) have concerning User:Rick Block/Keeping sewage out of the wine. It's an essay, there's a talk page, I assume you know what to do. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion

Shortcut:
WP:ZN

FYI. I'm posting here because we have orders from on-high to make this as widely known as possible, and this is a well-watched User talk. It's both a "proposed" and "already done" merger of V, NOR, and RS. It occurred, and then got held-up when Jimbo got involved. Long story. Five months of editing to slog through. But I'm sure of interest to people. Marskell 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I have neither the time nor the energy to read all of that, can we just have a brief (very brief) synopsis of the outcome - altogether too tiresome and fruitless to join these discussions. Giano 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, as briefly as possible: Wikipedia:Attribution is a merger of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, originally suggested by SlimV, and subsequently worked on by a few hundred people. Reasons: "verifiability" is actually a misnomer; V (a policy) relied on the often sloppy RS (a guideline) for its explanations; NOR and V are outcomes of the same question, viz. "can this be attributed to a reliable source?"; one page instead of three will be enormously easier to manage.
Long story begins when Jimbo notices five days ago. Slim had informed him and the mailing list last October, but it was forgotten about apparently. Jimbo has requested: "a broad community discussion on this issue" (here) followed by "a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results" (here). Note, ATT is not meant to change policy at all, but to make it more concise and maintainable. Marskell 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"V - RS - NOR - ATT" somebody please explain to me what he is talking about. Giano 14:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's the duty of the hostess. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:ATT are shortcuts to pages in Wikipedia space, namely Vandalism Verifiability, Reliable Sources, No Original Research, and Attribution. It's quite touching to see the country cousin trying valiantly to get his bearings at the party! Bishonen | talk 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
I don't bother to read all of those things, if one wants to stay up to date one would have to read them allevery day, as someone is always tinkering about with them, then I would not have time to write anything. Just tell me when it is all sorted out, then I will shout if I don't agree. I never use hiroglyphics or symphonics or whetever daft English word it is to describe all this initial talk Giano 15:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I have just linked the shortcuts at first mention. Marskell 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
As ever, the questions are in the uses made of policy, not the wording. If someone goes along to say "all articles without references should be deleted," that's a huge mistake and a massive case of dickishness (esp. when there are thousands of really, really, really, really, really offensively bad articles that wouldn't be caught because, while they say that Fubbies Magic Pills are the greatest things ever, they link to Fubbies Magic Pills website or Mikey's Fan Favorites Web Guide or someplace...or even a spam site). OR is not lack of sources. OR is OR, and lack of sources is lack of sources. Instead of spending :30 to go on the web to research "Oh yes, it's real, so we should KEEP this article that says 'Timmy is a cricket player'," let's spend that time getting educated and evaluating sanely and carefully the inherently POV and blind reviews. Let's, while we're at it, not go around fact tagging articles that say what is found in every reference. Geogre 17:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
"All articles without references should be deleted". User:Worldtraveller actually advocates this exact idea on his user page: "Delete all articles which are unreferenced, six months from now."
"OR is not a lack of sources." Indeed. I like the latest sum-up on this: "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed." (One of Slim's nuggets.) Of course, what happens in practice is indeed more important than what the pages say; policy should reflect best practice, not general practice. Over the now nearly six months of debate re WP:ATT, putting to rest the descriptivist argument ("well hey, people already cite Usenet, so why shouldn't policy let us cite Usenet?") was one of the hardest parts. At one point, people were considering writing a weakened exception for pop culture articles into the policy...*shudders*. Marskell 18:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
in my earliest wiki-days way back in May 2004 (a life-time ago) I used to write a quick page to fill a red link and never add references (it was not required) unless it was what I think of as a "proper page" - and I still stand by every word I've ever written, and if I could remember all the pages could easily find references to support them. However, I expect somewhere in all those pages I have given the odd architect the wrong Christian name, or have a date a couple of years out. I do not think those pages should be deleted - but I know what I am talking about (said modestly) a lot of editors here do not; and that is a problem. I hesitate to disagree with Geogre but I can see where "World" is coming from on this one. BUT let us be quite clear I do NOT think every verb needs to be linked directly to a page number - because that is meaningless. I frequently (Hannah springs to mind) use reference books that were printed 80 or 90 years ago in very small numbers - how easy would it be to cite "Crewe Vol III p 245" who could hope to check it - without the help of a very flexible credit card? (Incidentally there were only two volumes of that work) - so my point is there always has to be an element of trust, which is the reason I was so angry about the "Essjay affair" - otherwise we are going to have to say if a reference book is not currently in W H Smith it is ineligible for citing on wikipedia. I don't know the answer - and if I do, I don't like it because it will spell the end of wikipedia being the !encyclopedia anyone can edit". I post this here because my days of arguing are over, no one ever agrees with me anyway Giano 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(butting in uninvited...) Giano, I completely agree, and your experience mirrors mine exactly. Indeed it looks like we joined around the same time (me in April), and my earlier articles are still unreferenced, though I stand by every word, most of which is pulled from books in my library which I accumulated while getting my (verifiable!!!) doctorate. I don't quite know where to jump in on the ATT discussion. Bishonen, is your experience similar? A lot of us did a lot of writing three years ago which is still quite good, should not be deleted, and will be tedious to reference ... but I'm going to start doing it soon. Cheers all, Antandrus (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as Worldtraveller's User page goes, I'd sum it up as an idea to light an enormous fire under Wikipedia's ass. I appreciate the sentiment, even if I disagree with the specifics. Regarding Giano's sentence on trust: here I agree fully. There's an enormous element of trust in other users required to judge an article under review (at AfD or FAC or whatever). I don't think it healthy or unhealthy—it's inevitable, and I see it as one element of RewardReputation that the project requires. But it's fraught with a lot of difficulty given the nature of Wikipedia and it's emphasis on "anyone." Essjay is the obvious example, but you can find a smaller example everyday. Antandrus has a "verifiable" doctorate. Well, I don't know that. I don't know who Antrandrus is. S/he doesn't know who I am. (Not to be picky Antandrus, just using an example in front of me :). Marskell 21:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
My view is that all pages should have a list of references which will verify the facts on the page. If a fact is contraversial, outlandish or a very new theory then a specific cite to its source should be made. The Pope is a Roman Catholic; William I fought at Hastings in 1066 and Palladio was an unfluential architect do not need to be specifically cited, just a book which agrees with those facts mentioned in a reference section at the foot of the page is sufficient. Credentials for the anonymous are meaningless so lets not have them at all. Giano 22:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the books, Giano. (Some ways up. As usual, everybody and their aunt has already posted by the time I've written some reply to somebody, in this case principally to Antandrus.) Some of the people advocating coverall inline citing seem to assume that that would mean any editor will then be able to check any fact with a mouseclick. I don't have any sources as exclusive as yours, but you may remember I've written an FA which is principally verified through books written in a language spoken by 9 million people. That page contains quite a few counter-intuitive and surprising facts. They're cited, yes, but, in practice, nearly all readers are going to have to take what I say on trust anyway. And that's with me following all the rules. Anyway, no, I don't think I'll weigh in, Antandrus. I'm too slow and laborious a writer to do any good in a big free-for-all. It really bugs me when I spend half a day penning (keyboarding) a paragraph, and 15 minutes after I post it, somebody like geogre replies with two screens of much more cogent arguments... grrrrr... ROARRR... where Tokyo!? ... sorry, where was I? I appreciate Marskell turning up to sing a siren song [/me ties self securely to mast], but I'm trying to write a sandbox article here, and there are enough interruptions without diving into the Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion. Not planning to FAC it, no... I'm tired of FAC. It's not so much verifiability issues in my case, as the tone on FAC altogether. (One reviewer, when I took issue with what seemed outright hostility, assured me that it was nothing personal, simply the FAC culture nowadays!) And the joys of "having" a FA — in the sense of being scolded for laziness if you don't "maintain" it, and scolded for "ownership" if you do — are definitely overrated anyway. Being the main contributor to an actually controversial article, which mine are not, must be far worse in this regard, too — it's got to be "You don't own it, you know!" and "The main contributor hasn't bothered to maintain it!" all day long. Altogether, writing FAs can too easily turn you into a common criminal in the eyes of others. How many times has Giano, who never even mentions his massive FA contributions, been told that he expects, nay, demands, a "free pass" (pah!) because of them? Nice little wrinkle, that, don't you think? Anyway, an article's an article, with or without the star. If it's good, it's a good contribution to the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

Could not agree more, at the end of the day, a FA is only a FA because a load of people (many of whom never write a FA) say it can be, likewise it can be FARCd because the same people say it can't. I an tired of aruging with these people let them run the FA side of things if they want to. At the end of the day anything on Wikipedia that is good is good and anything less is usually appalling. Like many people I can recognise the good pages without having to look for a silly little star - so who needs FAs? Giano 22:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If, as we recognize, it's all a matter of trust anyway (and it is), and if a number of us from the old days routinely wrote true and good articles and didn't try to thumb through the books we've read to cite them, then we're up against the fundamental bullflop of it all. The people waving the flag of "verifiable or die" don't know the subjects and so cannot understand when a thing needs verification and when it doesn't. An article on a massively well understood subject like plot would be stupid to cite, unless it is reporting a fringe understanding or the historical development. Every reference in the world will say that it is the connection of actions in a narrative. Every reference in the world will say that it is a structural element of narration. However, people who have never read a single reference in the world will ask for a citation, and in the process they might miss it when the author goes off on a Roland Barthes 1956 Structures of the Short Story jag -- which should be cited, as it is a part of Structuralism. My point is that if it's just "they say you can, so you can," "they" need to be worthy. If they're not, they'll demand when they should be quiet and be quiet when they should demand. They'll miss the made up print reference. They'll have no sense of what is credible and what is not. When brand new information gets written, our New Page patrollers sniff the air. "Jimmy is a successful businessman" can be speedily deleted or not based on how likely, how credible it is, not whether Jimmy's fan put in a citation or not. If the patroller is uncertain, he goes to Google. The point is that every part of Wikipedia works by credibility, interrogation, and trust in tension, and it depends upon a dynamic balance between them. It only works with educated judges, though, whose education is up to the matter being reviewed. If that's Jimmy's business, the level of education necessary for a valid judgment is one place, and if it's Hollaback Girl's prescience, it's somewhere else, and if it's an FA on Heisenberg, it's another place again. No one minds, so long as they feel that the readers have sound judgment to tell good from bad. I have no confidence in those judges most active at FA right now to know good from bad academic material, as they have demonstrated ignorance of language and content. Geogre 03:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. "Willy hears you. Willy don't care." Ok. Well, in case what I said, above, is obscure, I will try one of my many "essays" to try to make my position clearer. It's persuasive, or at least I'm convinced, so perhaps it'll have the same effect on others at some point. Geogre 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Am I Willy? The only user talk I watch is my own; I come back to others' when it occurs to me to do so. If you'd like a response from Willy, please post to him directly. Marskell 15:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are bound to know

I've asked the owneres of some websites for permission to upload some images of country houses - so they have to fill in a form or something - anyone know what I am supposed to do to prove they have given permission? Giano 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody answered this query in all this time? Sheesh. That's not the way the salon is supposed to work. Image copyright is my least favorite subject, sorry. But yes, to the best of my belief there is something like a form to a fill in, and there are right ways and wrong ways of doing it... to make sure the permission sticks, for good, I suggest you contact a Commons admin who knows what's what. Raul comes to mind. Or, hmm... Jkelly. Zscout370. Or check out this list of Commons admins to look for people you have confidence in. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
Sorry - I have been looking at masterpieces, like Hairy Maclary (from Donaldson's Dairy). I wonder how many of these literary gems I have been overlooking for all this time. I see it has been eviscerated, with learned contributions by the sainted Filiocht cast to the four winds. See also general moan on User:Geogre's talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gah! Wikistress!

(tries to think about kittens) The Land 09:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Anythingspossiblepolicyiswhatwedo. YoufedupwithFACtoohuh? Bishonen | talk 10:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Indeed. Can I buy you a space bar? ;) The Land 10:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

TheideaofwritinglikethisistoexpresswikistressI'dratherhaveaMarsbar. I'verepliedtoyourquery here. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC). ExpressandevokeImean. :-P Bishonen | talk 10:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
A w(h)ine bar? I'll have a Gallo Gallon. Geogre 10:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The plaintive cry of the last standing deletionist

So, can anyone assess this other than me and the author of the article? It's about Brooks Landing, which is a shopping mall. Diff is here. Utgard Loki 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wh-wh- ?! Hey, buddy, I am the archangel of deletionism, so don't flatter yourself. :-) Looks like somebody got there already. The old "it's a mall, but it's the first one in [town] and so it's notable" argument don't even waddle, much less fly. Geogre 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Technically, being an archangel, you would be a flying deletionist, so Loki could well be the last standing one. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the pettifoggery, but your description of the archangels' physical etc. properties might be a little oversimplified (see Angel#Appearance_of_angels). Not that I'd give a flying whiff... Oh and for the record, should there ever be a contest for the title of last deletionist standing, be it known that my candidature stands eternally. But I digress. Kosebamse 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I tempt mortals into deletionism, so perhaps I'm the heresiarch of deletionism? I suppose user:Wile E. Heresiarch gets that title. Umm, guide to the dead and dying articles on garage bands and shopping malls? As for whether I have my feet on the ground or not, that depends on the time of day and which of my pills I've taken. (Why walk, when you can flyyyyyy, man?) Geogre 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then how about Swedish War of Liberation getting "cite" tags slapped on it. Isn't the information in there known to everyone who has ever cracked the spine of a book and looked for it? Do we need to cite information on things recorded by every source? Utgard Loki 17:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that template with an argumentative edit summary.[71] Now give me a vandalism template, please. {{blatantvandal}} will do. Bishonen | talk 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
Without arguing the point of whether they're required, hopefully they're useful. [72] --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
How is that useful? How useful is it for one encyclopedia to refer to another? Why not just use flippin' Google Books, if that's your goal? How many citations do we need for 1492 sailing the ocean blue? People need to read and consider the things where a citation is actually needed as opposed to where a tag could go. By throwing these things around like popcorn in the theater, we make the tag meaningless and leave ourselves with nothing to reach for when an article is actually making controversial and outlandish claims. I do Random Page all day. I see idiot articles about Mikey Greatest of All Kids and it has a "cite" tag on it. That should be a speedy delete (A7), but it has the "cite" tag. So, is the need for citations on that the same as the need for citations on Battle of Shiloh? If you want a concrete example of a Mikey with "cite," I can give you one. Utgard Loki 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Because those articles are more thorough than ours is, so someone who wants more information now has a specific place to go. "Go crack the spine of a book" is not very specific. I reached over and cracked the spine of a book just now, and didn't find anything at all about this war, it's hardly WWII. I needed to be guided to the right book. Those articles have actual bibliographies, which, again, ours doesn't. I can't just copy and paste the bibliographies out of them, because I haven't read those books, but I can refer to it indirectly this way, because I have read the articles. Eventually our article will include all the information in those articles, including bibliographies. Until it does, I humbly propose these links are useful, and I'm not saying anything about Mikey or 1492.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there has been a real zeal to put "cite" and "pov" tags on things. I saw a saint article that had a "this is not written with a neutral point of view" tag on it. Well, um, it is hagiography. The moment you have a hagiography, you kind of have a POV inherent in the job title. Then big obvious bits of history are getting "cite your sources" on them. It's so easy to apply a tag and so hard to read an article, I guess. Utgard Loki 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Back to deletionism. I think the articles themselves, like Melf, do the best job of persuading. Utgard Loki 17:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] misunderstanding

Hello Bishonen | talk, I'm sorry to have to mention the unpleasant misunderstanding we had over the RfC but it's come up elsewhere and would like your opinion before I do anything. I nominated myself on WP:RFA and the deleted RFC came up. I gave a broad outline without mentioning any names except mine and Justanother. It's beginning to look like more information will be needed, would you mind giving your perspective or allowing me to mention your username? Thanks, and once more I'm sorry to have to bring this up. Anynobody 02:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replied at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Anynobody. Bishonen | talk 07:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Vandalism Help

Bish, I've got a vandal hitting Zuiderzee Works repeatedly. It's minor vandalism, but vandalism nonetheless. The user is User:Car121. Tack så mycket! Bo-Lingua 04:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Bo, I'm just rushing off to catch my train and will be away from the computer all day. I'll take a look tonight, unless somebody else has taken care of it by then. Best, Bishonen | talk 08:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Oh, I see that was a short-term vandalism-only account, no reason to muck about with those. Indefinitely blocked. I can do that while brushing my teeth. Bishonen | talk 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Tack! Bo-Lingua

[edit] Sand

Did you notice that it's the anniversary of New Sweden -- the first Swedish settlement in the US, 1637? The articles alright, but that second map has me somewhat appalled. I can't let young viewers see it, as it looks like the Dutch were very happy to see U.S. so to speak. Anyway, the last sentence of the article may or may not be relevant to you. Geogre 11:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Alf walks by and notices the map, looks up Siggy's 'phone number and hurridly starts dialing on behalf of the uploader, a ẁorried expression grips his face.
Love the role that New Amsterdam plays in that map. Utgard Loki 12:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You can always modify it, but you know, it is a north-south river and they probably only claimed land to a certain extent on either side. You could always cross-hatch it so it doesn't look as ... virile? Bo-Lingua 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe the childishness of youse guys. Vandalize articles with your favorite body parts in your free time, do you? Bishonen | talk 19:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Hey, I didn't do it! I just saw it. I can't help it if the Dutch thrust inland in such a way. Geogre 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes a settlement is just a settlement. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm revert warring, soon, probably

Hopefuly, with Kim's help. Watch me go down in flames, soon, probably, not, yet, not, yet, not, yetti. El_C 12:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/s/User%7EBishonen_Archive_10_2676.html"