User talk:Bishonen/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Lingeron

I see some interatction with this user by you... See this ANI entry... I have warned this user as well. Do you know how to ask for a checkuser? I've never done that before. ++Lar: t/c 11:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to WP:RFCU and follow the instructions, if you think that's the way to go. However, CheckUser requests us to handle obvious socks without bothering them. This is an obvious sock, though I don't have a chance to list the coincidences right now--connection failing...failing.... Bishonen | talk 17:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC).

A precis to update you... Geogre looked into it, and based on the evidence in contribs and style, blocked as an obvious sock. Deckiller protested, unblocked, discussion on AN/I ensued, Essjay popped in, ran the checkuser without being formally asked, and officially confirmed sockhood and I reblocked. This time for good hopefully. Amazing how much time of the community this user wastes. Now I can get back to pimping for comments on Phaedriel's RfA so she can break 200... :) ++Lar: t/c 11:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, being the unoficial scold of AN/I, I have to say that I agree with the questions, the checkuser, and the reinstatement. It's all cool, and folks should get cookies for being thorough. Still, it was a rather obvious reincarnation. <shrug> This head of the hydra has been lopped off, a new one to appear soon, no doubt. Geogre 12:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As I told Deckiller, that's part of the process and good. I was however somewhat annoyed with User:GT, who I guess just took Lingeron's word that Thewolfstar was a Democrat! Actually, Lingeron didn't even say *that*, just that Thewolfstar mostly edited Democratic politic party articles, and GT picked up the implication and ran with it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. (I'm a little baffled by the way the people don't seem to have taken on board my own ANI post, but whatever.) Lar, since your block is the operative one, did you tick the "disable account creation" box when you blocked? If not, I'd advise you to unblock and then re-block doing that. (Don't tick the other box.) The CheckUser result rather suggests, to my mind, that Lingeron was editing from the wolfster's very own unique IP--we know she has one of those--rather than from an open proxy, and in that case this would be a great opportunity to disable account creation from the expansive sockfarm of this pest. Bishonen | talk 21:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC).

I *think* I've read that the two new checkboxes don't do *anything* if it's a username being blocked and not an IP, actually. (And I'll certainly help out with that other thing too. Or just laugh. It's hard to say.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I did tick "disable account creation" as I usually do, but can't be 100% sure. The block log should be enhanced to record and display that maybe?? ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy your wikibreak!

Have a cold one, all the way up!

Have a relaxing wikibreak, Bish - you deserve it! :) Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 13:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

wikibreak

Have fun "chillin'" during your break wherever you're at right now. You seriously needs to just chillax 'cause you work wayyyy too hard on this. I'm actually on break too even though no one on here seems to give :(. But yeah anyway I'll see ya around. Take it ez P.S. Holla bak @ me when you get back okay?? I gotta ask you something. I know you're prolly real disappointed in me right now. --Bonafide.hustla 07:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Boney, nope, I didn't check out the argument you were having, so I'm not disappointed yet! :-) Just behave yourself, is all. See you later. --Bishonen | talk 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

MSTCrow

I think that you have good cause for an arbitration request against MSTCrow, however it is also clear that the NPR request will not be accepted, largely due to the fact that dispute is seen as content-related and premature. I know you had asked that the case be accepted to look into MSTCrow's conduct, and I hate causing more work for the sake of process, but in this case I do think it would be worth the time to file a new request specifically for MSTCrow, and give more rationale specifically for that case. That would be more articlate and will probably be accepted. Thanks. Note: Copied to Calton. Dmcdevit·t 06:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Dmcdevit:

While I (obviously) agree with you that there's enough troublesome behavior to warrant ArbCom action, a quick look at the ArbCom page tells me that you folks are already up to your eyeballs in work, so practically it may not be a good idea -- especially if, as seems likely to me, MSTCrow is on his way down the slippery slope to a community ban. Under the theory of "give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves", it won't take much more edit-warring, insults, pointless wikilawyering -- note his defense of Lingeron (talk · contribs) -- and occasional outright lies for him to alienate a critical mass of editors/admins, which would render ArbCom action moot.

Besides, if he's true to form, any ArbCom case involving him would be wikilawyered up the wazoo, all intended to prove that it's everyone else's fault. His blocks certainly haven't taught him a damned thing (I've been blocked twice, not five times, and both times the blocks were vindictive and not based on fact..., as he claimed on his talk page) and I kind of doubt ArbCom sanctions would do more than provide him a martyrdom issue, either.

We'll see, I guess. So far, no other ArbCom members have weighed in, and depending on how they feel, this may be moot. Note: Copied to Bishonen. --Calton | Talk 07:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Calton and Rattboy are better placed than me for drawing up a case against the user: I'd have to research it bigtime, as the only thing I've seen of him comes from noticing those dumbass templates on Calton's page, and the following unreasonableness and aggression. I'm pretty centrally involved in two RFAr cases right now, plus I'm on vacation dammit, there's no way I'm going to instigate another one. I'll weigh in if you guys request arbitration, though. Calton, you might be interested in my latest comment on Bunchofgrapes' page: I see certain reasons to suspect MSTCrow of being yet another maggie sock. The coincidences aren't enough to be certain at all, but there's the unreasoning Bishonen hatred (see how there's no resentment of El C, the actual blocker, all the venom reserved for me? And BoG mentioned, too: both of us are old adversaries of the wolfster, especially me.) And on the sensible principle, enunciated by Lar, I think it was, that anybody who thinks maggie is a good editor has to be maggie (or be insane), this should be maggie. Anyway, you might want to keep it in mind as a possibility. There's something about the tone that strikes me as not the same, though. Equally objectionable, but not exactly in the same way. Bishonen | talk 13:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC).

Maggie's nothing like the wikilawyer that this critter is. Further, this critter keeps trying to stay just inside the letters of what he perceives as the law, where Maggie would gleefully run about with a flame thrower and a can of gasoline. I really don't think they're the same person, even though I think this Mystery Science Theater fan may well be a reincarnated troll. Geogre 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

LMK if you need an outside view. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately I'd say he's just a disgruntled wikipedian who fell in with Lingeron because they were both "abused" by Bishonen. Lingeron expressed sympathy for one of MSTCrow's earlier blocks because she too felt Bishonen was unfair, and MSTCrow later started rabble-rousing about Lingeron's block because he had an axe to grind against Bishonen. Think horses, not zebras. That said, I'd still say MSTCrow is probably going to flame out spectacularly and earn himself a block all by his lonesome if he keeps up the inflammatory rhetoric accusing Bishonen of corruption.--Rosicrucian 22:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Winslow Hall

Why are you never here when I need you? Who has deleted this important page, can you find out where it has gone - i don't just write these things for my own amusement - I know I wrote it, im my early days (under the first name) but where has it gone? Giano | talk 21:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It got deleted, but you don't need me--Bunch has restored it. Now thank him nicely. Did you see this and this from Fred? I've just posted my disagreement with the first one. :-) Bishonen | talk 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC).

• I have thanked him nicely, but I am, still less than thrilld by his edit here [1]. I note he has now changed his mind - rather like Fred really Giano | talk 22:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

H.E.'s arbcom case

Just letting you know that I plan on staying on top of him and Usher once the case is completed. I figure you'll need the assistance. :) And hey, I'm a glutton for punishment, I admit it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Woohoo. Considering the evidence I've posted in this case, I think it would be a rare situation where it became appropriate for me to block or unblock anybody involved in it in the future, so... congratulations, it's all yours!

Bishonen | talk 17:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC).

Welcome back

You're early, even if you meant August 6th UTC.

Welcome back. Let's get in touch soon, eh? Geogre 17:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that...? Sorry! I was messing with my page, trying to produce a version with both the new wikiquote and the ... never mind, doesn't matter, suffice that it was an accident. I never got an edit conflict either. Why aren't you on Skype?? Bishonen | talk 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC).

• Back already, what was the matter? Hotel no good? Well if you will stay in these cut price establishments what do you expect - its a false economy to be so miserly. Well you have not missed much (I am still here) and shortly to be become an arbitrator! - seize the moment and the bull by the horn has always been my motto - so I'm organizing coup d'état of the arb-com, it's all BoG's idea - I could never have thought of it on my own - isn't he clever - we storm tomorrow. BoG is painting his face with cork and putting folliage (from Paul August's Hall tree) in his hair as we speak Giano | talk 20:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean hotel? I was in the middle of the North Sea with a modem between my teeth. Are you sure you want to be an arbitrator? You do realize Bishzilla keeps them in her pocket? Bishonen | talk 20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC).

You're about to become an arbitrator??? ORLY? ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You sound surprised Lar - any particular reason? Giano | talk 21:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, every female arbitrator is going to show bias and vote however you vote? ++Lar: t/c 10:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite scientists' expectations, the population of modem-chewing elephants in the North Sea has tripled over the last six months. (Hi Bish! Great to have you officially back on board.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I actually managed two edits from the North-Sea bound train, principally this. It took rage and some filial tech support, but I did it. Ho hum [bursting with pride], have you edited from a train? Trainzilla | talk 23:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC).

In the U.S., the internet is just series of tubes, so we can't edit from trains here... the last tube would rip right off. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lmfao, the comment above was hilarious. Anyway, welcome back Bish, good to see ya.--Bonafide.hustla 01:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Canuck

I wouldn't object to some progressive blocks. I'm wondering what Johnny's connection to Vaughnwatch is? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Are User:JohnnyCanuck and User:Johnny Canuck related? The latter seems to be doin OK work on Carl Lewis, a page I watch. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

They look like different guys to me, even though both are into sports. Congratulations, you get to do something about the username melée. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC).

Oh boy! Let the fun begin! Well, I started the process. Soon comes the inevitable "I don't wanna! I'm blocking you! Waaaah!" stage, right? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My pessimism was unwarranted; a successful name change took place. Yay! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Have you guys looked into the other half of this edit/flame war. In my opinion, user:pm_shef isn't the innocent victim here. ED209 01:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's possible. It's not the point here, the point is that pm_shef's action was not vandalism. Do you realize that I've been telling JC that he must stop referring to non-vandalism edits as vandalism for several months now, and he just keeps going? Oh, you do. Good. Do you also realize that Zoe and I are in agreement that it's time for a block, and, indeed, progressively longer blocks, if he keeps going? JohnnyCanuck needs to get his head round the WP:Vandalism page, especially the section "What vandalism is not". His behavior hurts the wiki. I quote from WP:Vandalism: "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia". Bishonen | talk 19:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC).
    • JC only does that because Pm_shef removes warnings from his page and calls it "vandalism". As well as removing other critical commentary. ED203
      • Why the sock, ED209/203?--Rosicrucian 20:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
        • EDwhatever, you seem to be missing several salient points here. Pm_shef is well entitled to remove baseless warnings from his page. Posting and re-posting frivolous warnings IS vandalism. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

User:Cute 1 4 u

This user has two sockpuppets confirmed by CheckUser. After the kerfuffle over her Raven Symone sock, I'm presently debating putting the sockpuppeteer template on her userpage. However, I suspect she'd probably just delete it and cause Wikidrama. Your thoughts?--Rosicrucian 02:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My basic feelings about the user are still represented by my ANI listing back in June. This is a kid and a newbie. She thinks wiki is Myspace and makes up imaginary friends when she has trouble getting enough action... shrug... OK, we can't have that, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but I wish somebody would just take her in hand and explain stuff, rather than the blocks and the templates. That wish isn't directed at you, I know it's a lot to ask, and I'm not willing to do it myself either. (Children have enough nightmares about Bishzilla as it is.) It looks to me like there are two options: either put on the puppeteer template and adminprotect the page, or post an appeal for a volunteer nanny on ANI. Bishonen | talk 10:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

It's worrisome I'll agree. At first I was inclined to say she knew too much HTML to really be eleven years old, but when I saw her add the warning tag to her userpage today and break about every div tag on the page, I realized she's just probably copy/pasting what she likes from other userpages. So while I grit my teeth at her claim that she created the Perry Mason article (which she's never even edited on) I do wonder if there's anything we can (or even should) do. Certainly she doesn't seem to understand warnings and other input from admins, and will often just delete them. In other users this certainly wouldn't be tolerated, but I can understand your concern about taking a harsh approach with her.--Rosicrucian 14:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of the naive, I agree with Rosicrucian, but I also note that Bishonen is more asking for a patient parent-figure to help the child than that the child's misdeeds be ignored. I like to be a New Critic about this stuff and say that, if a person is doing harm and no good, then it's just a case where "You must be this tall to ride the Wikipedia" -- that we still have to correct and prevent damage, even at the same time that we shower the user with the grace of Wikilove (it's Sunday, and I'm missing church, so expect religious metaphors all day). Geogre 14:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

While I do understand what Bish is getting at, it'd be with some trepidation that I'd ask someone, indeed anyone to open this can of worms, which is largely why I haven't slapped a puppeteer template on the kid. I remain doubtful the user would take any outside criticism or advice the right way, as she seems to just get confused when people try to nudge her in the right direction. Certainly given the tone some editors and admins have taken with her, she probably doesn't know who to listen to and who to ignore.--Rosicrucian 14:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My userpage protection

Bishonen, it's been almost a year. Can you unprotect my user and talk pages now? I promise, I will behave 99% of the time. Due to current circumstances, I need to contribute anonymously, and would like the avenue for debate open. 67.18.109.218 03:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not my protect on it now, the page has been unprotected and protected several times since I did it. But sure, I'll assume good faith and unprotect. The warnings are all very old, you shouldn't have to keep them up there any more, so I've blanked the page. I hope you won't incur any new ones (those would have to stay). Good luck with your editing. Bishonen | talk 09:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

Feedback

Bishonen, I know you may not be happy with me as you may feel I am defending Timothy. As I said in the evidence part, Timothy sometimes makes quick judgments. Anyways, Do you have any feedback here[2]? we are trying to write a mannual of style for Islam related article. Your comments are most welcome. --Aminz 04:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your experience of TU is quite different from mine, and I don't object at all to your expressing your perspective on him, how could I? I've no feedback to give on your manual of style, sorry. It sounds like a worthwhile project, but I'm far too ignorant of the subject to be involved in it even peripherally. Bishonen | talk 09:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

Message from JohnnyCanuck

Please explain your message on my talk page that I removed because I can not make sense out of it.--JohnnyCanuck 18:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I really cannot put it any more clearly. Please see my new message on your page. You have been blocked. Bishonen | talk 18:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

User:JohnnyCanuck

• Hey Bishonen, you may want to check JohnnyCancuks' talk page. He deleted your warning as "nonsense" in the edit summary, and put that baseless vandalism warning back on my page. If you could remove it from my page, it'd be much appreciated :) -- pm_shef 18:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Relax, I am sure he is aware. Read the above message from Johnny himself. Mind your own business and assume good faith. ED209 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[3] ?? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, ED209 has created ED203 solely for the purpose of continuing this dispute. It's bewildering, because his old account isn't banned. At the very least, the new account has no other real edits.--Rosicrucian 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please do a checkuser. This was fairly predicatable. Somebody has created an account to impersonate me. It could be user:pm_shef. Don't make comments such as "near as I can tell." What is this based on? You say yourself, my account is not banned. ED209 20:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would user:pm_shef accuse himself of vandalism, sockpuppetry, and other banworthy offenses?--Rosicrucian 21:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Whatever the case, its not me. ED203 and myself have posted at identical times and on his talk page, we are in the process of having a discussion. This is not my style. I have no need to create more accounts, and if you look at my edits, they are fair. On the talk pages, I am very aggressive because I am tired of user:pm_shef and his political agenda. ED209 21:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• For goodness sakes, this is just another example of User:ED209 accusing me of various offences without ever providing any proof at all. All he does is accuse me of vandalism, sockpuppetry, not assuming good faith, POV pushing and God knows what else, and yet through all this he has yet to provide even a single morsel of evidence to back up his claims, all the while dragging my name through the mud. Bishonen, sorry for continuing this on your talk page. -- pm_shef 21:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I said "it could be." I don't know what to think about it. I find it weird that somebody has created this account. ED209 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Pm, that's ok. But actually, ED209, unless you think ED203 is me, I'd appreciate it if you took your discussion with various users off my page and on to your own. Lord knows I have to archive often enough. Bishonen | talk 21:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

Welcome back

Welcome back Bish. Martial Law 18:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC):)

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 19:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

Your talents are needed

Bishonen, you are one of the most respected editors on Wikipedia. I would be eternally grateful if you would edit the "Alternative Treatments" and "Controversy" and "Parental Roles" sections of the ADHD to give them a more neutral viewpoint. I would do this, but having ADHD myself, I find myself unable to handle it with a neutral point of view.

Sincerely, --*Kat* 03:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Flattery will get you everywhere! Sure, I'll take a shot at NPOVing those sections, fully expecting to be laughed to scorn on the talk page for my ignorance. Bishonen | talk 09:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

If you have any questions about ADHD or anything related to ADHD, feel free to ask. --*Kat* 05:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Just realized that you had already gone over the Parental Roles section. Thank you! --*Kat* 06:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Update

Since you put your hand to the article, the number of edits made daily to that article have gone way, way down. Thank you! --*Kat* 06:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I stabilized it? Heh, cool! Thanks for letting me know! Bishonen | talk 06:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Sock of Jipanzee

Thank you for indef blocking User:Jipanzee, he seems however to to have created a sockpuppet to evade his block a grand total of two minutes (at 15:41) after the block. the sockpuppet is User:Sowpon, his sole edit seems fairly self explanatory. If you're interested, as I told User:JamesTeterenko, I believe these latest sockpuppets are in fact seperate from VaughanWatch/JohnnyCanuck (assuming JC is a sock). Their edit patterns seem sufficiently different (VW focused on PoV pushing in mainspace, the new ones, included ED, focused more on personal attacks and disrupting wiki) to lead me to believe that rather than all being spawn of VW, we're dealing with two seperate groups, with the second cooperating with the first simply out of convienience. Anyways, thanks for keeping an eye out - wish we had a more effective way of dealing with them. --pm_shef 00:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note Sowponn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Very original eh? -- pm_shef 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ED209. Feel free to comment if you wish. -- pm_shef 01:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI

I am surprised you are an admin here. For Your Information From Etiquette "Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message), except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings".Bharatveer 11:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So am I sometimes, but life is full of surprises. The etiquette guideline you quote refers to erasing non-harassing personal messages. See, that doesn't happen very often. It's inherently unlikely that people will want to erase civil messages, and it's not what dab was doing. Dab has not contacted me, his page merely happens to be on my watchlist, so I'm not especially well informed about the conflict between you; but then I don't have to be to see that your messages on his page are rude, threatening and abusive, in other words harassing. I would like to endorse the advice you quote from the etiquette page: "If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on". Bishonen | talk 12:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

well, Bish, since you are looking into this already, I do think Bhatveer has a block coming, for blatant trolling if nothing else. I'm not upset or anything, but I would prefer to edit Wikipedia without this kind of background noise, so if you can be bothered, you might check if you would agree. dab (ᛏ) 12:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

ah, I just noted that you warned him already; that's certainly good enough for me, provided he'll shut up now :) dab (ᛏ) 12:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

From your comments on my talk page. "...but then I don't have to be to see that your messages on his page are rude, threatening and abusive"

Can you pls show where I have threatened and abused him.It would help me to correct myself in the future.Bharatveer 13:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a threatening quote made by you, Bharatveer: "I will make sure that your famous quote will surely "haunt" you for the rest of your wiki life." Here is an abusive quote made by you, Bharatveer: "I personally dont care whether you use your Mouth or your arse to shit or of understanding fecal connections." Both quotes can be found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dbachmann

(Edit conflict) This edit is a good example. It's full of inapproriate personal remarks. You speak of dab himself: his character, his prospects — "You see this is what you really are. I dont think anyone can help you regarding this". You speculate inappropriately and intrusively about his character, prejudices, and capacity for change (all of them hopeless, according to you). Don't do this. Don't discuss other editors' motivations or personal qualities at all. That's the secret of civility and the essence of WP:NPA, a policy that I see you recommend to others. See the first line of that policy page? "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Here's one that assumes bad faith in refusing to believe dbachmann's (perfectly credible) explanation of what he meant, and uses bad language and a threatening tone. These are all bad things. Avoid them. Bishonen | talk 14:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

Your reversion of my edit to wigger [4]

It was not vandalism, please see my message to Bonafide.hustla [5].

--Yunipo 12:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out bish, I appreciate it. Btw go to [6] to wish Jimbo happy b-day.--Bonafide.hustla 07:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

3rr

You have blocked Bharatveer for WP:3RR. I noticed that another user did the same offence in the article, and have noted the other offence also at WP:AN/3RR for fairness reasons. Maybe you didn't see this in the article history. However, in blocking for WP:3RR, care should be taken that all parties are treated equally, otherwise it is unfair. (WP says: In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.) Cheers --Rayfield 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess you missed my post in response to yours on Bharatveer's page. Bishonen | talk 17:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

Que!

Bishonen dear you are sure to know the answer, what is this page all about Category:Administrators open to recall, I found it while looking for something else, there are so many of them why would anyone not be able to recall one - I'm lost - please inform. Giano | talk 20:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry I've just sussed it - Amazing! Serve them right if someone did - humbleness mixed with cockyness is always nauseating Giano | talk 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, charming--I just spent half an hour looking out the links and writing it up for you in words of one syllable, and now you don't care any more? Bugger that, you're getting it, because someone did (=me). Here it comes:
Some 30 admins have listed themselves on that page. Open to recall means they're willing to surrender their adminship and go through a new RFA if six users in good standing ask them to. You know, users such as you and me. Or you, anyway. Admin User:Crzrussian, who is listed on the page, has just done some dumb stuff with his admin powers, and Dmcdevit and I have asked him, per the "open to recall" page, to surrender his adminship. It's the first time the page has been invoked. Dmcdevit's post here gives a good picture of what the problems were. It's being discussed on User talk:Crzrussian and in this ANI thread. This is me: [7] [8]. Two or three other users have chimed in, everybody else thinks we're being mean and petty and "casting the first stone" (that's the choice wording of Crzrussian himself) and oh, no, how cruel to expect him to de-sysop himself. (So in fact there aren't at present six users requesting it.) I've a good mind to propose the "open to recall" page for deletion--apparently it's merely for show and showing off. (Bunch and Lar have listed themselves on it.) What do you care, are you grooming yourself for adminship again? Bishonen | talk 21:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

Poor wittle 'Zilla is simply too timid to be on that scary page.

We're bad, bad people. I'm uniquely bad -- being both in the nasty category and also being among those asking for a re-RfA for Crzrussian. This is such awful behavior on my part that it is a shame it hasn't caught on among his supporters in this affair to go over to my page and ask for my own recall. Does this one case adequately demonstrate that the idea doesn't work? I'm not sure. Do we demonstrate "humbleness mixed with cockiness"? Hmm, I'm afraid I might with or without the category. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you always have to be worst. I'm the most rouge, because the only reason I'm not listed is I'd be too scared. I'd have nightmares about, say, MCCrow (in excellent standing, here since 2004), EE (also lots of edits), chummy Bharatveer above (seen his talkpage?), and an elastic number of sleeper Maggie socks homing in on me within minutes. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

What you are forgetting though is what great fun a re-RfA might be. Remember your RfC? Aren't your cupboards running a little low on cookies and brownies again? I bet you could smash that wet-behind-the ears Phaedrial's record without even trying hard. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• The humbleness is insinuating one is subject to one's peers, while the cockiness is knowing it is near impossible to obtain 6 people agreeing completely on anything in wikipedia - No, I am not grooming myself for adminship - I seem to do very well without it, thank you very much. Now back to work, all of you - pick up your mops I'm sure there are dirty floors somewhere that need your attention - I'm of for a glass of wine in the VIP suite (poor man needs some advice, a huge bore but one must help where one can) remember to mop right into the corners! Giano | talk 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh...I'm grooming "myself" for adminship..just joking. But anyway listen y'all, what's the point of listing yourself on that open to recall page if you simply ignore it? Btw, the admin Crzyrussian just made the decision to ignore a few users (myself included) who are tryna recall him by calling me a stalker. --Bonafide.hustla 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there are some misconceptions in this thread. I see this process working out pretty well so far, and to characterise it as cocky is a bit of a misstatement. Before you get ready to propose it for deletion, let this process work through and see what happens. RfAr exists as a check, if Crzrussian acts unreasonably, it will go much harder for him at ArbComm... Also please remember that by definition it's Crzrussian's (or in Bishie's case, hers) perogative who is certified. He chose, presumably after reviewing B.h's contributions, attitude, and other factors, not to certify him as a user in good standing with him. His perogative. I'm clerking so won't express any opinion on the merits of the case but there are 4 people already certified so to say that you can't get 6 is a bit of a stretch I feel. ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

N.b. for readers of this, there is significant dissent on my talk page. I won't try to introduce an argumentative tone here, but I disagree with much of what has been said about this case. Geogre 23:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, if I read this correctly, I have been accused of "cockyness" for standing for recall? :( - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your opinions requested

Hey Bish, as a resident featured article writing superstar, I was hoping you'd take the time out to give your input on Wikipedia:Featured article advice, my guide that I moved out to Wikipedia space to hopefully encourage greater use. I was thinking of re-ordering the points to prioritize them, so I'd be interested in your priority order. Thank ya - Taxman ^Talk 22:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I suppose you saw me saying above that flattery will get you everywhere? I actually meant subtle flattery, there's a difference! Bishonen | talk 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

Oh, well perhaps you were too subtle about that, I've been known to be oblivious to subtlety at times. More important question, did the flattery work? :) - Taxman ^Talk 22:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You didn't see the edit summary? That was my subtlety.

Bishonen | talk 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

Duly missed. :) - Taxman ^Talk 23:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit 3rr blocks

Hi there Bishonen. Sorry if it is my mathematical pedantry kicking in (see my user page), but I changed the length of Crculver's block to a total of 30 hours, as it seems as though he did 5 reverts. I have made a comment on Bharatveer's talk page, and I feel the blocks are above board. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Good to see you on my page again -- but I'm sorry that the autoblocks are back in force. The programming "fix" doesn't seem to have lasted long. I appreciate your attention but am calling it a night. Best wishes. WBardwin 10:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

my number two block of the evening just hit me again. I knew I should have gone to bed! Best...........WBardwin 10:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My Recall

Hello. Your response here will be appreciated. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Crapola

Dealing with a LOVELY lady named PennyGWoods. Check out my post on WP:AN and WP:AN/I about it. She's now using open proxies on a daily basis. Got so bad that I had to semi Halle Berry and the talk page because she just won't leave it alone. And the IPs are all over the map. Just fun. All of this because she's mad about how Halle played Storm in the X Men movies. So silly. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This contains alot of the joy that is PennyGWoods. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hey, we have something in common: I've been called the queen of bloody England too! [9] I've been signing as "Liz" and using the royal "We" ever since. My user is now in arbitration; perhaps yours will end up there too. Bishonen | talk 09:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

I thought Kevin Costner protected Halle Berry. No, that was Whitney Huston. Ok, then what about Mike Tyson? No, that was Robin...Robin Givens. Nightcrawler protects Halle Berry and Billy Bob Thornton! (I'm always up on celebrity news.) Geogre 11:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're high up on something, methinks... that was amazing stream-of-popular-cultureness. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I can never keep my celebrities straight. Tom Curse is married to someone and has apparently produced a "baby bump," but Kevin Federline is a hip hop star and won't drop the baby or something.... Geogre 17:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

ANI post on blocks

Thank you for that comment you made today on ANI regarding how it feels to be blocked. I think it was very intelligent and well-phrased. Haukur 12:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

SOW, I tried to call & got a message that you are either not online or "have recently blocked me." Oh, the humanity! Geogre 12:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Haukur, you did sterling work yourself. ;-) Sorry Geogre, I had to reboot and I guess I didn't turn Skype back on. The MacBook seems a little tired. Not as tired as me. How about I call you back when it's cooler, say 10 aka 4? Bishonen | talk 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

Sure, you bet. I haven't ever heard my phone ring before. Geogre 16:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

artistic endevor

My dear, it was simply an artistic statemnt that Wikipedia is indeed serious business and EVERYONE should be aware.

Pet

Can you place a copy of "Bishzilla" on my Userpage ? I do apologise if I'm in error. Just looking for a good Wiki-pet. Martial Law 04:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:DanielCD has one called "Compie". I do not mean to be offensive at all. Just looking for a good Wiki-pet. Martial Law 05:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Bishzilla is not a pet. Martial Law, quit posting on my page and talking about me. How many hints do you need? Go away. Bishonen | talk 12:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC).

Did not mean to offend you. Will comply. Martial Law 16:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Round of applause

"Agree wholeheartedly with Mark. I believe all recently blocked users should be cut some slack regarding what they do in the frustration of reacting to the block. For instance, don't scrutinize their posts for personal attacks, don't expect model behavior, don't take it so personally if they tell you how abusive you are. A block is a shock. All admins are more powerful than all regular users; but admins are so much more powerful than a blocked user that it should give them pause. It's not the right moment to express your irritation with how much trouble the user is being by slapping on an indefinite. Assume even more good faith than usual. This all goes double if the first block can be seen as dubious or unfair. I support unblocking now. Oh, and btw, I'm assuming good faith on Deckiller's comment that we "might be able to get an indefinite for this": I'm sure he didn't mean it as crassly as it sounded."

That was a very good comment. Am I allowed to post here, by the way? Everyking 08:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Until further notice you're very welcome here, James. Thank you for asking, and thanks for the compliment. I feel strongly about what I see as harsh blocks, especially for "personal attacks"--there's too many of those, with too loose definitions of both PAs and of "disruption"--and especially about any hint of vicious-circle progressive blocking, whereby users get slammed with longer blocks simply for chafing under the first one. The quote of the week at the top of this page is from a rather lengthy shitstorm I've been in for acting on these convictions. The statement's supposed to be withering, but I display it with pride. Some solutions need unsolving. :-) That's not to say I think you and I are any too likely to see eye to eye in blocking matters in general. And if this is really about the two-week block I see you've just come off, I don't have any opinion about it, I haven't been following it. Callous as it may sound, there are a lot of less high-profile cases around that *nobody*'s following or protesting, and that don't require reading a few mind-numbing novels' worth of background first, so... Sorry about that. (And if it was about the Extraoradinary Machine brouhaha, I'm afraid I'd probably support the block.) Bishonen | talk 10:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC).

Um. How about the recent block of Uzerbaaji (talk · contribs)? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no. You're the guy with the wikilove, remember? Not me. I demand adminns please. I want ad,in. how i get admidn? give admin. What are you waiting for, nominate me! My tutor brevesky cane me now for fail. What have you got to say for yourself, eh? Tutor brevosky might legeal acction with wikpedia for my fail . why i fail essay with wikipoedia helping? Yes, you may well shuffle your feet, ALoan! I demand explanation please. give explanation. Bishonen | talk 11:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC).

I just waved the big stick about a bit (and then felt guilty). User:Alex Bakharev fired the shotgun. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin abuse. You should have written that essay for him! Bishonen | talk 12:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC).

Fire!

Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver has a gatefold interior of a 17th c. painting of the fire. The back cover says, "painting of Great Fire of London on stepback copyright Museum of London." The novel is part of a new web-friendly project called P.S., and they refer one to www.baroquecycle.com for whatever that may be worth. Geogre 19:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. WTF is "stepback"? Bishonen | talk 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC).

No clue, but I'm thinking it's one of those cute London neighborhoods that should have a majiscule. The painting is very obviously from the other side of the river. Southwark neighborhoods are numberless as the stars of the sky, and as fancifully named. Geogre 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A stepback is a type of book cover — specifically, it's a cover that's of a slightly shorter width than the pages, showing a "stripe" of either a design or a larger piece of artwork underneath. Te painting Geogre mentions is on the book's stepback. (Don't you love all the random Wikipedians who have "The Salon" watchlisted?) --keepsleeping slack off! 22:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic answer. I never learned that term in my Bibliography class, but I was pretty angry about having to take the class and thoroughly set against learning anything. That's a great help. Geogre 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank ye both. Geogre, perhaps you were thinking of Stepney? Bishonen | talk 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC).

Well, the painting is on the "stepback," so Keepsleeping must be right. This leaves us no nearer to knowing if the painting has a name other than "Painting of Great Fire of London." We know it's at the Museum of London, and we know that the copyright doesn't actually apply, as the Bridgeman Case would argue, but no telling whether anyone has been brave enough to scan a reproduction and loosed it on the web. Geogre 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The image on the stepback looks like old St Paul's in flames, and seems to be a detail from this image on the Museum's website. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The great and powerful Bishzilla remains one step ahead of the teeming masses. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, faithful herold. Teem on, teem on, my pretties. Bishonen | talk 03:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC).

Won't display for me. I have a feeling the copyright sniffers may be holding their noses. One needs a reminder of the Bridgeman Case fairly often, I gather. Geogre 03:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I semi protected your userpage to keep the trolls at bay...feel free to override my protection of course. Best wishes!--MONGO 21:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep it for a while. That was amorrow, you may have recognized the type of preoccupation. He has discovered that the boyish-sounding "bishonen" is really a ... you know. One of *them*. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC).

Augustan drama

Was a bit fo a shock to arrive at the main page and find the featured article was a red link :) Viridae^Talk 07:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... I had a bit of an adrenalin rush myself. :-) I knew I wouldn't dare if I thought about it, so I just jumped in. :-) But it was deleted for less than a minute, I think and hope. Bishonen | talk 07:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC).

Gabriel

Nice work.Much Appreciated.Bharatveer 07:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel Pradiipaka

I had blocked Gabriel Pradiipaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 1 month, but later he went on a rant against me and wikipedia as a whole, and requested to remove his account. I added an indef block, but am not sure whether this action is ok. I've put the block on review at WP:ANB/I. Since you had given him a warning previously, it might help if you review the block and modify/change the block accordingly. Thank you. --Ragib 08:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Great Observation

" (User:Karl Meier, for instance, never appears on talk, he merely reverts "to Pecher".) "

Thanks Bishonen --Aminz 09:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR and talkpages

"It's a good rule of thumb to not edit war, ever, over what another user does on his/her talkpage. You run a big risk of being seen as petty or frivolous when you do that, and the 3RR might be enforced against you instead. The removal of warnings on one's own page is "discouraged", not outlawed, and the 3RR is usually not enforced against such edits. Anyway, he removes a warning, that means he's seen it. There's no need to keep shoving it in his face. Please leave his page alone."

Fair. Now my question on the matter: Can a user remove a warning from his talkpage?

• You say yes
• Another admin says it is vandalism [10]

What is the rule/common sense/principle?--Kwame Nkrumah 12:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hi. It's a subject where consensus is changing too rapidly for official policies to keep up, so if you really want to get into it, you should look at some current discussions. See Wikipedia:Removing warnings, which is a proposed policy/guideline page and contains an overview of what the principle is in actual policies and guidelines. They're not entirely mutually consistent! Take a look at the discusssion and poll on the talkpage, too. In a nutshell (the way it looks to me): many users and admins consider it uncivil to remove warnings, provided these warnings are 100% legitimate and bona fide, but don't consider it vandalism. Look carefully at Stifle's wording, which is straight out of WP:Vand (he's probably using a template); see the complications in it? There are also a couple of current, piping hot, discussion threads on WP:ANI, "User:El_C Vandalism by Administrator(Removing Warnings)" and "User:Avraham Vandalism (Removing Warnings)". I believe these show a strong admin consensus for the "just let other people do what they want on their pages" school of thought. I'm sorry it's so complicated. That's the way it goes when consensus, as here, is formed by practice, not handed down from above. Bishonen | talk 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC).

(Slightly off-topic: Is it just me, or is the "Alternative policy suggestion on removing warnings" inside the box in Wikipedia:Removing warnings the worst piece of crazy bureaucratic rule-creepflood I have ever seen?) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming Question

If I were to venture upon starting an article on Davenant's converted tennis-court theatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields that was originally Lisle's Tennis Court but might also be called the Duke's House or one of a handful of other things, what you you think the article would best be titled? Currently we have a de facto convention of linking to Lincoln's Inn Fields when mentioning the place, but this seems most unsatisfactory. Opinions from Geogre, ALoan or others also welcome. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it should be part of Lincoln's Inn Fields, since the same name got glued to several places, just as Covent Garden and Drury Lane were several different places. <shrug> However, if you wanted to do it otherwise, I'd say First Lincoln's Inn Fields or Restoration Lincoln's Inn Fields. Geogre 21:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Excellent point. Lincoln's Inn Fields Theatre, perhaps? The theatre in all incarnations took up a very small amount of the real estate that is Lincoln's Inn Fields, right? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, nobody ever called it those things, though. I'll get back to you, but listen, guys. A new user has created Wikipedia:Admin Policy. It's not, how shall I put it, actual policy... could somebody move it to his userspace and write him a nice explanatory note, please? I should warn you that speaking to him at all tends to cause him to get... upset. But if it was me doing it, it would doubtless be censorship and a criminal attempt to hide my breaches of admin policy. I'll be damned if I try to talk to him again, and just moving it without saying anything would be confusing and unkind. Grapey, you're a tactful guy, how about it? Bishonen | talk 22:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC).
      • Update: User:Doc glasgow took care of it, sort of. I'm not entirely happy, because it's still got "policy" in the name. Oh, well, who cares. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC).
• I don't like the way it has been taken care of, as it's no solution at all. It will be easy enough for that warning to fall off in the night. I think this should be mentioned at AN or AN/I. Let's get all the horses on the stampede. Geogre 02:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Let Rhadamanthus do it. Bishonen | talk 09:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC).
• Fine. I have no history with the user, and Rhadamanthus is very unhappy with the name. Geogre 13:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ooooh, I get it. I'm sorry, but that was my view. Aren't I even more lovable for having aggravating integrity? I could not love you but that I love my country more? Geogre 13:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not the integrity, Raddy, it's the passive forms. You know? This should be mentioned. Somebody should write up a request for arbitration instead. The views are fine, what about the legwork? Bishonen | talk 14:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC).
• I wasn't laying it off on you. I was laying it off on the next action the dude took. The thing is, his vows are just tantrums until he does something. When he does, then it's time for a response. N.b. I supported a month's block for community exhaustion. That's a pretty long time, especially for me to endorse without leg(al) work. Basically, let him show that there is iron in his words, and then I would support a month community block. Also, mynd you, I do have an idea for how we can do community blocks and bans in some more sensible way than we currently do. Geogre 16:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So back (nudge) to the (poke) original question, which you do have some opinion on: tell me your opinion before I am forced to create the page at Lisle's Tennis Court between Portugal Street and Portugal Row off Lincoln's Inn Fields Duke's Opera and New Theatre, which would probably not be so good. I am currently leaning for no good reason at all toward Lincoln's Inn Field (Theatre), though if truth be told, in my heart I just want to call the thing Lisle's Tennis Court, because, you know, it's catchy. Then again, it does seem to be verboten in the sources I've seen to call Christoper and John Rich's rebuilt 1714 version "Lisle's Tennis Court". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You can see my (swipe) choice from the (headbutt) blue links, or Lisle's Tennis Court, in case the RC patrol has already speedied it. Bishonen | talk 06:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

I've not seen it called the tennis court, even if that's what it really was, before 1714. Liberal redirects. Geogre 12:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly secondary sources call it that as often as they call it other things, at least for the older incarnations. There being so few theatres in London at the time, primary sources AFAICT don't call it much of anything useful at all. You know -- "Duke's House", "The theatre", "the Opera", that sort of generic thing. (Bishonen, you scamp! The NP patrol sees Bishzilla's name and clears a wide alley.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. Please note Bishzilla is, to general relief, disconnected, see message on Geogre's page. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

"community ban"

What is a "community ban"? --JWSchmidt 03:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See [11]. Bishonen | talk 04:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

I thought I understood the idea of a community ban until I saw this discussion. Which comes first? A block or a decision to ban? --JWSchmidt 04:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Either can come first IMO. Ideally, a small consensus is first established on WP:ANI by raising the matter the way I did, followed if appropriate by an indefinite block. But then a third step is important: that a big consensus grows from it--that as many admins as possible pay attention to the case, and actively decide whether or not to unblock. The community ban of User:Thewolfstar followed that pattern. But IMO we need some better way of generating enough attention for these proposed bans, both before and after blocking. We don't want a scenario where three or four admins form a "consensus" on ANI and everybody else was busy with something else that day. It's not a problem that arises in this case, though, as there's obviously not consensus even among the people who've responded. Bishonen | talk 05:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

As I read the policy for community bans, blocking comes first. "a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is widespread community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process. With such support, the user is considered banned" Can you point to the policy that outlines how the community should first decide on a ban of an editor who is not blocked? --JWSchmidt 14:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't. Policy is established by practice. The practice now seems to be to either start by blocking indefinitely and then posting the block on WP:ANI for review, or by first raising the question on WP:ANI, the way I did. I think the second is the better, more civlized, way, because it doesn't unnecessarily put the user through the block/unblock mangle. I'm sorry, but I think I've shared all I've got on this issue. If you're making a point about my conduct, could you be more explicit? If you're not, do you think you could raise further questions on the talkpage of [12] and/or WP:BAN? Bishonen | talk 15:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

"3RR violation question"

I noticed you are an admin... maybe you can answer my question. I had a 24 block placed on my account and it expired about a week ago. The template for my request to remove the block is still on the USER TALK page, but I believe it should have been removed when the block expired. How do I get it removed? Also, I changed my username after that incident and am limiting my edits to non-controversial topics. Its just not worth the headache. Someone felt it necessary to post on my old talk page that I had changed my user name, they also added a "redirect" link. Is this standard procedure when someone changes their user name? Can I remove the post without getting attacked for violation of some rule? Thanks - appreciate your time. --OneCyclone 17:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me see. I'm pretty sure I can delete a userpage at your request without any hassle, so the simplest way is probably if you ask me to delete your old talkpage and userpage (the one that's a redirect). You know, just reply here and confirm that you'd like that. If you would in fact like that. Meanwhile, I'll ask User:Zoe if she minds. Bishonen | talk 17:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

In general, deleting user pages is ok, but the usual feeling is that one shouldn't delete talk pages if they have any significant history of edits from others. (Blanking and protecting is OK). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah? You have mail. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

Arg, I don't. I wonder if hotmail is eating it for some reason. :-( Try again? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How about now? Bishonen | talk 19:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

Got it. Seen my talk page in the last couple hours? Enjoy. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Rolling on the floor weeping.

I'll blank those userpages, then. What would be the point of protecting them? Bishonen | talk 19:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

It makes them a little more "not there", if you know what I mean. Heads off any edit-warring over redirects or last insults at the pass. I don't know if it's a great idea, I've just seen it done. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've protected plenty of them myself, but the usual reasons don't seem relevant to this case. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

I would appreciate it if you could delete it and would delete it. It was a bad way to start off on Wiki. I've read the comments, have done my penance, and will be more reticent in the future. Thanks for your prompt response to my inquiry. --OneCyclone 19:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'll just blank, rather than delete, your pages, per Bunchofgrapes above, with the caveat that I haven't heard from Zoe yet. I'm sorry you had a poor start. All new users make mistakes, you need time to absorb the culture of the place. Good luck with your new account. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

Thanks. I have a better feel for how this all works now. Enjoy your Sunday.--OneCyclone 20:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In his initial incarnation, OneCyclone was an edit warrior on Joseph Smith, Jr., but so long as he doesnt' continure, I have no problem with him being renamed. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Knock Knock Knock

Spirits of the air is anyone there? Knock twice for "yes" once for "No"........(BoG stop pushing the glass that is cheating)..........Bishonen can you here me?.....I can feel a presence.......Bishonen is that you?.......do you have a message for us from the other side?......Bishonen is that ectoplasm or are you just frothing at the mouth?....I can feel you now...very close....I sense anger is there a probblem you want to share with us? Giano | talk 19:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

ADD UP THE LETTERS THAT THE GLASS RESTS ON AND BE AFRAID BISHONEN

/BISHZILLA TAKES THE LITTLE SALON OUT OF HER POCKET, LICKS IT EXPERIMENTALLY, SPITS...

• Ahhhg..Ah! ..er Bishonen dear, you are returned to us Ostende nobis Domine, misericordiam tuam what a blessed relief. I thought you had been cut off in your prime, no one of course is happier to see you returned than me Domine, exuadi orationem meam. I knew my sceance would restore you to us! Giano | talk 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oh put a sock in it. BoG, if against expectation you have anything to say for yourself, please e-mail via Geogre. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

• (I appreciate the "prime" bit, though.) Bishonen | talk 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

• Too late offense taken! but - detecting a whiff of scandal - softening a littleWhat's BoG been upto then? Giano | talk 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• BoG isn't sure. I'm feeling guilty and I don't know why. Is it my 3-day block on H.E.? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oh very well, you don't know what a sacrifice this is, but I'll create a gmail account. GRUMBLE. With luck, you have mail. Giano, it's not the fun kind of scandal, sorry to disappoint. You'd have to read RFArs and stuff. Bishonen | talk 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

• The reply is in the mail. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WTF is a "good article"?

It seems that anybody can just come around and claim that something is a good article, and so it will be. Somebody nominated the article on Carolus Linnaeus as a GA, I protested on the article talkpage, and today it was nevertheless raised to that status. I just removed the template from the talkpage and the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles. Compared to FA, the whole thing seems completely arbitrary.

Sorry to see that you have problems with your connection to teh interweb. I was looking at your contributions yesterday morning and wondering whether Bigfoot was going to become a FA before that conflagration in London. up+l+and 05:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had the same problem at Norse mythology. It's not a good article but just removing the template explaining why doesn't seem to do the trick - it comes back. Apparently you have to jump through some hoops too :) But it's probably too late to fight this system now, it seems to have permeated the place fairly thoroughly. Haukur 09:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that anybody can just come around and claim that something is a good article, and so it will be.. Excellent summary. Did you see my final frenzied edit summary on Bigfoot, though, Tups? I think people use that article for darts practice. Whatever protest against "sceptics" that occurrs to them will be added wherever the dart strikes, and I don't think they'll ever win the local pub championship, either. Have you thought of taking Carolus Linnaeus under your wing and making it a good, or indeed featured, article? Bishonen | talk 10:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

I for one saw your mood-apropos copyedit spree, since Bigfoot is still on my watchlist from the good ol' days. A brave effort on a hopeless page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot is one case where the current Wikipedia editing model breaks down, I guess, along with anything concerning Balkan, Middle Eastern or Caucasian history, historical linguistics, and a few other things. And moose - can anyone explain why that article gets constantly vandalised? Are they for real? I believe I have seen moose, and even eaten them, but perhaps they were 10th dimension space aliens (if they are edible in our dimension, does anyone know?), or just cows in disguise.

As for Carolus Linnaeus, I had been hoping that some of the taxonomy geeks would do the grunt work, with me coming in at the end clearing up some minor misunderstandings with the help of Swedish references. up+l+and 07:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention anything concerning religion. It's fun, isn't it, to know (or even to pretend to know [evil chuckle]) some obscure bork bork lingo and be able to come in at the end and make random unlikely claims without fear of contradiction! [13] Bishonen | talk 08:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

I have got to start pretending to be multilingual. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Relax!

Thanks for the loyal support here [14] to be quite honest one has to think ask is it really worth all the bother, EE, Charles Mathews, Wotsit Bauder - one doesn't fortunately meet such intellects in real life - so why bother here. If they would rather have EE editing here than me - well that can easily be arranged (it seems they want to do so) - and I say good luck to the project - do stop saying though you will go if I go, appreciated as it is, it only makes me feel guilty, and you would hate it - sitting their fuming at the ignorant edits, while I am of a completely different disposition, I would just think Wikipedia was getting the edits it deserves, and quite enjoy seeing them. I'm only posting this here now, because I'm not sure when they implement these things. Although I'm in USA next week, I won't bother editing with an American number (I won't have the time anyway) because I actually feel rather sick, this has all been a bit of an eye-opener hasn't it? I shall hang around until banned - it would be nice to see WWP finished and FA'd but I'm very short too of real life time (I mean busy not about to kick the bucket). Just a passing thought:- I wonder if Charles M is another of EE's socks - discuss! Giano | talk 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bah. If I were any more relaxed I'd be liquid. What's WWP? Bishonen | talk 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

Damn it, both of you. There is no way whatsoever for either of them to change their minds, now. Geogre 21:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Geogre - I am truly very grateful to you, but they would never change their minds - it would make them feel weak. Giano | talk 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a lot of noise for what is still an unlikely hypothetical IMO - they still need 5 more ArbCom members to make the same error for that to pass. Getting CM's back up any further can only hamper the cause. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you BoG - if we need wise advice we will ask for it! CMs back is already up, such an unpleasant expression - it makes him sound like a hobgoblin. "Only the sick accept death lying down" - and I aint sick! Giano | talk 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I could have said y'all are going to make him "shirty", but I don't know what that means. Look. You're not accepting death, but you're not going to change CM's mind either -- see, Geogre says so right up there, must be true. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Change his mind? Why on earth would I want to do that? People like that do not change their minds - it merely needs to be clarified why their minds work as they do! Giano | talk 22:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• PS: Oh and Bishonen dearest, please do put that dreary barometer thing at the top of your page to a more cheery possittion, we are all fed up, but that gloomy thing is not helping Giano | talk 22:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Gloomy? Admit it, you've been not wearing your glasses again. I've removed it in dudgeon. Bishonen | talk 08:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

• Ok, ok. Enough tossing rocks into the precipice and talking about their plinking sound, both. Geogre 02:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not suggest I am tossing anything, a tosser I am not! It is though all very daft isn't it? Where will it all end. God; I hope no journalists are reading all of this, can you imagine it in the anti-wiki-press, an editor who screams obscenities at others is encouraged to stay, while another who recommends she eat Fugu while on her highly publicised trip trip to Japan, is banned for a month. God wikipedia will be a laughing stock - and quite rightly too. I came to this conclusion by imagining what Mrs. Giano would say if I told her of my plight, when she had finished rolling on the floor, I suspect I would get her famed pitying, withering look as she simultaneously phoned the hospital and divorce lawyers. Yep - it makes you thing - what are we all doing here - all very silly. Giano | talk 06:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I was away for the last ten days, so missed Charles' vote and the ensuing brouhaha on his talk page (probably not our finest hour). I am astounded at how this case has developed. I was ready to discount Fred's position as eccentric, but GM's agreement makes the situation more serious. And Giano, please don't even suggest that you would really let two arbitrator's (perhaps misinformed) opinions drive you from the project. Who would I talk about playing footsie with? Paul August ☎ 20:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

His excellency

Hi Bish. I said on the voting page for His excellency's ArbCom case that you deserved thanks for your efforts to ensure he was treated reasonably and fairly. So here you are: thank you. :-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice, Smoddy. :-) Thanks. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

Hello Bish! You know, I was planning to serve out some tea and recommend a slice of homemade apple pie, but it looks like that might be dangerous. So accept my warm greetings instead! — mark ✎ 20:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Er... dangerous? You mean it's the kind of apples that contain nerve poison? There was this proposition also--grrrrr--though it didn't see wide support. Fred B can monitor her next time she pops up. I reckon it's his turn. As for the languages with a grand total of three and a half speakers, bring 'em on, I love 'em! Bishonen | talk 22:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

Well, you know, it's possible that offering someone an apple is a sure fire way of telling them that you'll force them to eat arsenic, since there is arsenic in the seed of an apple, and tea is clearly a threat to force someone into either early kidney failure due to diuresis or that you plan to use an illegal herb. In fact, you should never propose that anyone eat anything nor that they not eat anything, nor, obviously, think that they should or should not, as it all could be a threat. Geogre 02:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Geogre! That's what I meant. — mark ✎ 09:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's always just super to help. It's a good thing they did, Anthony, a real good thing. I'm not thinking bad thoughts, I promise. Geogre 12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

From your good friend, Drybranmuffin

yes, i was wondering how exactly, you got involved in the altercation betwixt myself and Bunchofgrapes. Just a question my dear.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drybranmuffin (talk • contribs)

You mean where I warned you about your edit to his userpage? Well, admins poke their nose in when they see vandalism, that's just part of the system. And the reason I saw what you did is that I have BoG's userpage on my watchlist. It's actually very easy to oversee what happens on particular pages or with particular users. For instance, by going to your page and clicking on the button "User contributions" in the left-hand column, I can see all the edits you've made. Click here to try it. See the list of your edits? If you click on the word diff in any particular post, you will see the text you actually contributed to the encyclopedia. Please take a look. Hmmm. Would you say any of it is helping to build the encyclopedia? I actually wouldn't. And yet that's what you're supposed to be here for. (If you're not, you shouldn't be here.) I hope you will start editing more constructively.

Please feel free to ask me questions, but may I ask you to refrain from calling me "my dear"? I prefer neutral appellations--gender neutral, and neutral in every way--from strangers. If indeed they experience a need to call me anything. Please sign posts on talkpages by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. That's magic code, which will translate automatically to your username plus a timestamp when you save--please just try it, it works. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

A light in the darkness

Wow, how refreshing to see your well thought out response in the User:Deuterium thread. You called it so perfectly! (→Netscott) 00:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for somebody to explain, preferably WMC (in whom I seriously do have faith). I really don't get it. Bishonen | talk 00:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

Ok, you've got three admins (and myself obviously) supporting a block here with User:JoshuaZ being the only dissenting voice. User:Deuterium is now displaying the report on his user page. What more does this person need to do to be blocked for WP:POINT? (→Netscott) 01:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither Joshua nor WMC have responded to me, obviously. I really wish somebody on the other side would try to justify the way you've been treated, because it's weird to me, and as far as I understand what happened, it was quite unfair. :-( I'm sorry it went like that. If I'd seen this earlier, I would have done the "unilateral" blocking thing, but now that both Joshua and Arktos seem to be assuming responsibility for Deuterium's behavior not continuing (and he has modified his userpage), I won't jump in and block him. I guess it would be punitive rather than preventative. I'd like to stand by and keep an eye on him, too, but I'm in the wrong timezone for it, it's--OMG, it's 4 AM. Good night! Bishonen | talk 01:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

I know very well how to make major edits, thank you, care to point out any major edits that I have marked as minor? Reversions don't count. Deuterium 02:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversions don't count? Nonsense. Two admins have now told you not to mark those as minor, but you know they "don't count"? Where do you get that idea? Anyway, it's very easy to point out major edits marked as minor. This, this, this... Hardly any of your edits are in fact minor yet they're all marked as minor--up until the moment I posted on your page, that is, after which you abruptly stopped marking them minor. That's good. Why you found it necessary to simultaneously post an aggressive message to me I don't understand. Bishonen | talk 02:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

Deuterium

You and Pinchas both support blocking Deuterium and Netscot seems to be under the impression that my lack of desire is preventing that from occuring. Let me make it clear that if you think Deuterium should be blocked, I will not object. JoshuaZ 02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. He's edit warring about the disruptive message on his userpage as we speak, so he probably is blocked by now, or any second now. I wasn't going to block him punitively, please see my message to Netscott above, but it's beginning to look like he needs a preventive block. I'll go look what's happening. Maybe I'll block him myself, it depends on what I find. Bishonen | talk 02:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

InShaneee has blocked him. Bishonen | talk 02:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

Nice Blondin Trophy/Tightrope award

Wow, that was just the thing that I needed....! Thank you very much. :-) I've got a big smile on my face. (→Netscott) 09:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

bv

Hey Bish, remember when I was concerned about use of bv at my Rfa? Well, I've used it a few times now... and now I've gotten one. No kidding. Content dispute, and I got a bv. Is this ironic, or just silly? KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I assure you it's not ironic. But what we need, as I've suggested on ANI, is a template to plant on these people. I'd call it {{warningwarning}}. And for the worst cases, {{blatantwarner}}. Bishonen | talk 12:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

(Not to nose in when I'm on the /Ignore list, but shouldn't that be "WorryWart" and/or "warningwart" to "warningwort?") Geogre 13:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I don't think its a case of warts, Geogre! Although it is unpleasant. Btw, thanks much Bish. Hopefully the editor will realize I'm not being defensive (its not personal, in other words) as you have also made a post on his talkpage about misuse of the template. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

On /Ignore? Qué? You've got those skills, haven't you Puppy? Maybe you could make me the Blatant Bishzilla Positively Last Warningwarning template? I'm thinking of calling it {{atomicraywarning}}, and the actual text would go something like "Bishzilla takes the little warningposter out of her pocket and, ignoring the feeble cries..." But I'll think of the rest soon, I'm scaring myself a little here. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

I think they are a bit like wort, if worts were a little dumber and more toxic, and they're somewhat like warts, or some other type of lesion. (Bish, there is a new Ramble to see.) Geogre 14:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean they will someday be nectar? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

{{Vww}} Draft one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha, cool! :-) Here:

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're absolutely sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the word in edit summaries (such as "reverting vandalism"), and be very careful about posting vandalism warning templates on user's talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See WP:VAND: "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors." Come here and I'll vandalize you. Would you like a puff of atomic ray?

You see how I widened the scope a little, it's about edit summaries etc also. Maybe rename it {{novandal}}? Bishonen | talk 15:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

I took off the atomic spray. I'll make a special Bishzilla one for you later, ok? Also changed the image. Move to whatever name you wish, dear. I'm outta here for the weekend, will get back Mon or Tue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're absolutely sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the word in edit summaries (such as "reverting vandalism"), and be very careful about posting vandalism warning templates on user's talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See WP:VAND: "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors."

A talk

that you might like to join in on William M. Connolley's talk page. :-) (→Netscott) 11:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty of Augustan drama

"Indeed a poet undergoes a great deal before he comes to his third night; first, with the muses...then, sir, with the master of a playhouse to get it acted, whom you generally follow a quarter of a year before you know whether he will receive it or no; and then, perhaps, he tells you it won't do, and returns it to you again, reserving the subject, and perhaps the name, which he brings out in his next pantomime; but if he should receive the play, then you must attend again to get it writ out into parts and rehearsed. Well, sir, at last, the rehearsals begin; then, sir, begins another scene of trouble with the actors, some of whom don't like their parts, and all are continually plaguing you with alterations: at length, after having waded through all these difficulties, his play appears on the stage, where one man hisses out of resentment to the author, a second out of dislike to the house, a third out of dislike to the actor, a fourth out of dislike to the play, a fifth for the joke sake, a sixth to keep all the rest in company. Enemis abuse him, friends give him up, the play is damned, and the author goes to the devil: so ends the farce." -- Henry Fielding, 1734, Pasquin, V i.

your "favorite" user is back

Hey Bishonen, I wanted to alert you to this discussion on Bunchofgrape's talk page. You were mentioned by name as someone who might like to comment. Anyways, I'm fairly certain the user being discussed is none other than thewolfstar. I especially like their post to Justforasecond's talk page about being harassed by abusive admins, especially since they have yet to run into any (but hopefully will soon). Anyways, thought you'd like to know. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 22:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ungovernable. (Do you ever meet user "The Irresistible Force", and what happens then? User The Immoveable Object comes into being..?) Yes, I watch Grappa's page, and had been checking the contribs and feeling rather unsure, in spite of the anarchism/communism angle. But that Justforasecond comment certainly is suggestive. It's not just ye olde abusive admins, but also the neediness, the typical "I like you, please come and talk to me, I don't have anybody to play with!" It must be incredibly frustrating for the wolfster to have finally realized that if she does the things she wants to do--runs around planting affectionate messages on all her old friends, and just happening to run across a quite unusually abusive admin by the name of Bishonen--she'll be outed again. (Doing those things was a regular giveaway with her first ten or so reincarnations, lol...) It's not so much that she's my favorite user--I can take her or leave her--but I do believe I'm her favorite admin! ;-) And it's the tone. Thanks for keeping me posted. Oh, and this edit is only a cat's whisker from being downright vandalism, IMO. Best, Bishonen | talk 23:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

I kinda liked that edit, but as you can tell, I tried to tone it down (and add fascism again) ;) Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and thanks. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

They just added a copyright image of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to their userpage. I would remove it myself, but obviously I'm not the best person. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 04:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And Bish is! I am clearly the best person for this job *snort*, so I did it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Holy smoke

My private view is that if London had not burnt, they would have found a reason to demolish the heart of it and re-design, it all fitted with the new scheme of things there. However they were short of funds and the fire was convenient, probably started accidentally but almost certainly allowed to rage through intention - Charles II and his cronies wanted a new sweep, literally and they obtained it. Charles I reign had begun to see radical changes in architecture there, and London was not the rat infested medieval city it is often portrayed. Paris had improved but was far from Hausemann's version of today, and Constantinople was a little like going to Venice today, beauty could be seen in its decay accept of course people were not so easily aesthetically pleased at that time. Giano | talk 22:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you're attributing to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. And by an excruciating lack of mobile phones. I'm going to have that as a kind of red thread running through the narrative. "Not having Bluetooth, Pepys was forced to go bodily to Whitehall to alert the King. Precious minutes, even hours, were lost through lack of adequate hardware. Telecommunications and water supply failed together." There was no "allowing", as I think you'll acknowledge once I'm done with the narrative. Thanks for the edit, the poor relation is very good. (Where are my pelmets?) Bishonen | talk 23:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC).

I thought the Illuminatis did it in hopes of uncovering the ley lines running under Old St. Paul's? No? (Hey, you want a barnstar? You can probaby get one if you unprotect your talk page.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds vaguely alarming. A barnstar from one of the special friends who're the reason it's protected...? A new brick from Raul, editing from an IP...? Bishonen | talk 00:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

It is a fact that all of the nobles were mysteriously missing from the area where the fire raged, and the Masons had all, just coincidentally, gone on vacation. A coincidence? Ha! Records show that five thousand Freemasons were supposed to be asleep in their beds that night, but they managed to get out of the fire area in time. (It's a miracle any fire was ever put out at all, not that that one raged. Space had been the previous fire retardant, but the growth of population from 1600-1660 had eliminated that. Good old capitalism was beginning, and bringing with it the charming habit of accumulating loads of poor people, just in case workers start wanting to get paid for their work.) Geogre 01:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Sayers

Just been reading the main page article today which is short and sporting (can't say I like Lady sportswomen - all those over developep muscles etc), d'you think Thomas Sayers is good enough for a run on FAC? I'd forgotten about it untill someone edited it today Giano | talk 12:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

(Lady sportsmen are dreamy. Not the overmuscled ones, of course, but lady soccer players, dancers, volley ball players.... Ooooooh.) Geogre 12:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Funnily enough you're both disgusting. Bishonen | talk 12:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

Everyone is just as God made him, and often a great deal worse, as the man said. Geogre 13:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

But what about my George? He is beter than Cynna cos he does not have a moon face and buck teeth, or is it just a bad foto? Giano | talk 15:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your George? As in your Tom? I like him, and the pics are great, but you'll get complaints that it's too short, y'know. Is there any more material to be had? Secondly, the references are kind of insubstantial. Is it possible to find any book reference at all? The link in the first four notes (they all have the same link) doesn't work... maybe it went to a page that has now moved? Bishonen | talk 15:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

I've George on the brain - forget Tom, I wrote it it in a couple of hours what do you expect - refs that work? its as long as the Cynna thing on the main page (and if I may say so a great deal more interesting)Never mind I'll think of something else to FAC, I'm in the mood to nominate something to liven up a wet and dull sunday evening - have you a spare page you no longer want - I could nominate? I think I'll go and check BoG's contributions and nominate one of his while he is not looking - I like to keep people on the toes Giano | talk 15:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't tempt me! You know that guy who used to FACnap all my stuff? Who's on wikibreak and plans to nom Dürer's Rhinoceros when he returns? Feeling mean at all? You know what to do! Bishonen | talk 15:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

If either of you is willing to do some reading, you can add references to Charlotte Charke and nominate her. BTW, Bishonen, still wanting to know what you thought of the last Ramble, as there is a new one up now. This one is called "Bastards of Jung." I love that title. Geogre 19:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Be quiet Geogre you are far too nice for your own good! Charlotte Clarke wasn't she some nice Englishwoman who became a spy or something? - (No just had a look "lesbos" fine in their place but not my cup of tea at all - not even as twins too butch and body hair etc) No Bishonen has a far better idea - how much do you dare me? Giano | talk 19:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I ban people and I vote! LOL! (Will be voting soon.) I love it, Geogre! The sloganator! :-) Bishonen | talk 19:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

Geez, this banning people for one month thing seems to be contagious. :) Newyorkbrad 21:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Problems with SqueakBox

User:Pura Paja and User:SqueakBox are the same person. If not, Pura Paja is a meat puppet of him. Logical things can be done by several users but absurdities, such as redirecting sub-articles to a main article so nobody can edit them read them and so on, are rarely done by more than a vandal.

I believe my edit was a good way to denounce the situation. I've not spent much time here, but, well, User:SqueakBox was banned for a month from editing the Wikipedia and he created User:Skanking to continue editing, as it's been demonstrated. Can you explain me why no administrator has blocked SqueakBox yet if he didn't respect his ban the first time? Have you nothing better to do than harass honest users like me with silly details that you can't enforce a ban of the Arbitration Committee? Hagiographer 06:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, SqueakBox is under Personal Attacks parole and he has posted the following in this page: "[My main successes has been ...] restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints but who is determined to slur him." One of the meanings of "Hagiographer" is that, a person who writes about saints, so that paragraph is clearly an attack against me. I've simply deleted vandalism in the Zapatero article, about which I don't feel any especial interest and I would not have paid much attention to it if it wouldn't have been repeatedly vandalised. So, I want an explanation of why those negative remarks go unpunished on a user who is under POV parole. If you want more negative comments of SqueakBox against me you can find them here: [15]. Hagiographer 06:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You want an explanation? Here it comes. You see, no administrator takes responsibility for everything that goes on on the entire site. To pick an admin at random--me--and demand an explanation of why this or that user has not been punished, is a meaningless question, as you'll only be told "I don't know the case". You should ask the people who have taken on responsibility for the user's conduct: the Arbitration committee. Like this: go to the front page of the request for arbitration where Squeakbox was banned and put on parole and so on, and look for the heading "Enforcement" near the bottom of the page. There you will see information about exactly how and where you can effectively complain if you think Squeakbox has violated any of the remedies that ArbCom applied to him. (If you had told me what that case was, I could have told you more briefly and exactly what to do, but you shouldn't have any trouble finding the place.) There's not much the ArbCom can do if people who know about violations, like you, don't tell them about it.

I understand that it's difficult for a new user to know which way to turn with a problem, but I'm afraid you picked two bad ways: sniping at the user by altering his edits is not a "good way to denounce the situation", it's itself a violation of site rules, and it makes you look bad, and accomplishes nothing. And bluster at an uninvolved admin like myself ("Have you nothing better to do than harass honest users" etc.) is not a good way either. When you have a complaint about lack of enforcement of an ArbCom ruling, the good way is to read that ruling and see what it says about enforcement--probably, that you should report the behavior to arbcom--and do it that way. Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 08:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

First of all, I have to say I'm sorry because it's true I was too hard. By the way, the "you" of the question was intended to convey a "plural" meaning. I didn't refer to you, User:Bishonen, but to all the Administrators in general... Sorry again. However, you must understand it's difficult to take the rules seriously when somebody defies them so blatantly.

As I understand you don't know the case, it can be found in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas. In regard to the month ban it says the following:

SqueakBox and Zapatancas banned for one month. For personal attacks, edit warring, and harassment, SqueakBox and Zapatancas are each banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.

I posted this on Friday on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:SqueakBox:

As can be seen in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas#SqueakBox and Zapatancas banned for one month, SqueakBox was banned from editing the Wikipedia for a month. It has been proved that User:Skanking was a sock puppet of him as can be seen in his user page and his block log ([[16]]). He used it to edit during his ban starting at the beginning of June (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas#Log of blocks and bans) as can be seen in Skanking's history ([17]). So, SqueakBox has to be blocked as he has not respected his ban. Hagiographer 08:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So, I don't understand why SqueakBox isn't banned for a month if he hasn't respected the decision first. Please, explain it to me because perhaps the problem is that the Wikipedia isn't for me as the current situation defies completely my logic. Hagiographer 11:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the issues, but I've contacted Tony Sidaway, who tells me they're complex. He's investigating your complaint. Bishonen | talk 13:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

Thank you for the time you've devoted to the problem and sorry again for my comments yesterday. Hagiographer 06:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine. I know the place can make you feel like you're shouting into a black hole sometimes--sorry you had to wait for a response on the enforcement page. Bishonen | talk 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

My boss SqueakBox has asked me to point out to you that Hagiographer continues to commit forgery by changing SqueakBox's signature to that of Pura Paja. [18]I am not a banned user 63.245.13.231 17:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Moby Dick is back on hos harrasment parole

Moby Dick is back. Please see the ANB/I case. I thought you'd be interested as per your past comment --Cat out 11:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

MSTCrow

Wow... serious business. I am not sure why he continues on, after all the blocks and the threats to leave. He does make some useful edits, though their utility is more than offset by all the bile he spews. I am reluctant to endorse community bans for this level of activity, though. Perhaps we could strongly suggest that he leave... - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Entropia Universe POV bias

It was brought to my attention by another user that an IP editor is removing any negativity regarding Entropia Universe in the article. I'm not sure ehat the procedure is on this, Bish, but I value your help! Bo-Lingua 14:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It hurts me to see wordiness and adspeak like that. And of course, if only the praisers of the product would see it, a neutral encyclopedic-sounding text in a place like this is actually a better ad for them. I was shocked to see the IP deleting comments and browbeating people on the talkpage, making them think s/he had some sort of authority for removing comments — that's why I spoke so sharply on its talkpage. (Sharply and pointlessly, as it's obviously dynamic.) A lot of bullying goes on in the quieter corners of the wiki! Did you see the thread on ANI? Bishonen | talk 15:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

I did now, and I've also posted my own views on the deletion. This is ridiculous to see things like this. :( Thanks for your support. :) Bo-Lingua 04:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuss

What is all the fuss at BoG's page - has he been recalled? - I can't follow it at all, and why is Lar talking in pseudo legal-language? It's all very mysterious Giano | talk 16:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know most of the Salon regulars have issues with the voluntary recall category as it stands now, and doubtless this petition will do little to change that. It's kind of improved my mood, though... mostly because I am such an attention whore, I guess. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you see, Giano, User:MSTCrow, a user who could not easily embarrass himself--click on this link and all will become clear --has just provided a heaven-sent opportunity for Bunch and Lar to look like monkeys in front of a wide audience. Having made my thoughts known on BoG's talk, I propose ignoring this so-called "case". Bishonen | talk 18:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

• Oh well, I'm not one to say I told you so (even though I did) anyhow more importantly did you see that rude man on my page (no, not me - Rhawthorth) Good job for him I'm in a jolly mood this evening (the thing I told you about went v well this morning) he's moaning about my latest artwork which though it has been deleted at my request I have a spare [19] have a look it's really clever, much better than a boring old plan, and I made it all by myself, sadly though I've decided not to use it cos the conventional plan is clearer, but I thought you would like to have a look at my genius! All this GIF and pings where is it all going to end, I think too many of them spend far too long playing with their computers machinations Giano | talk 19:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, cool, reminds me of this one! Bishonen | talk 20:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

• Seriously though, take a look at WWP's history which plan do you find easiest to understand conventional one or that one - both sadly are GIFs but that can't be helped Giano | talk 22:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Monkey-wise, I like the 2-D one heads and tails over the 3-D. It is both more tasteful and more easily deciphered. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes but you are from Idaho and are not an artist like me are you? Giano | talk 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Don't make the monkey cry. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Much as I dislike agreeing with a man who needs a clerk to help him ignore a "petition", I too find the 2D more helpful for the reader. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

I'm sorry, who are you insulting here, I'm not totally clear on how broad your brush is. ++Lar: t/c 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here? BoG, definitely. On his page just now... you, I think. Bishonen | talk 23:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

LOOK LIKE MONKEYS!!! Sputter. -- ook, ook... er I mean ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And NOW go read the last post on Giano's page. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

This is Winslow Hall not the real thing, but a picture I made myself

So you and BoG like the 2D better than the 3D. Have you the remotest idea how much the package cost to do that - well have you?. This package is amazing it has walk through models of all the buildings I do, well it would do if I could put the details in - problem is...I can't put the roofs on, they won't fit, and come out all wrong, the instructions are all in English and too technical for me - would anyone notice on the FAC page do you think if WWP didn't have a roof. Look here is a very realistic Winslow Hall, you wouldn't know it wasn't the real thing (apart from the roof) would you? (compare [20] the sky is blue the grass is green (landscaping does seem a little technical too) - I'm going to do Buckingham Palace, The White House, and the Senate next. Isn't computer science wonderful. Giano | talk 21:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The artistry of that image! The cleverness of that man! [/me falls down and worships.] Bishonen | talk 21:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

It's funny you should say that because acuratly translated from the It. site I bought it from was the phrase "stun your fainting friends when they see the home you have designed for yourself" what they did not say was that all the instructions were in American, and I struggle with English instructions. My kids have whole boxfulls of unfinished plastic build-aeroplanes and battleships thatc I have declared peices missing from. Giano | talk 22:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Ramble.

It's a lightweight one, but I thought of it while I was at the pharmacy, and I knew I had to hurry to write it. Geogre 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it might entail a small thing known as dropping dead, but hey. Bishonen | talk 21:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

We're not responsible for misuse of our product, are we? (Besides, satire is a safe world. I mean nothing by it, of course... or at least no one can prove that I do.) Geogre 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Size of the City of London

Sorry somebody took a bite, but, you know, they taste just as good.

I've been looking around at this -- it's aggravating. I think Tinniswood is just plain wrong, one way or another. The area within the wall is 330 acres, I'm pretty sure of that from various fine looking sources, double-checked against OR map-measuring. The area of the present-day City of London is about a square mile, 668 acres or close to. But the present-day city has escaped the walls: compare if you will maps [21] and [22] (the second of which shows the borders of the City today). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that's friendly of you, I take that very kindly. Especially for a guy who... well, never mind. Thank you, have a chokladbiskvi. Bishonen | talk 07:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

"When You Were a Tadpole and I Was a Fish"

Obscure English literature topic alert! Perhaps you or Geogre (or some other bypasser) can come to the rescue of Langdon Smith, who seems to have been a poetic one-hit-wonder of about 1900. Apparently there is a strong popular demand, expressed on web forums around the world, for a Wikipedia biography of this man. up+l+and 07:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you are so lucky: that is right up Geogre's street. Bishonen | talk 07:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

I've heard of him. :-( I have no transportation, though, so I'm unable to go find anything on him. Back to you, Bishonen! :-) Geogre 11:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is currently at Langdon smith? Doesn't Geogre have a law about miscapitalized people? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap! That should be speedy deleted. First, it's nonsense. Second, it's a report of negative findings. Third, it has a copyright notice on it! Fourth, it violates Geogre's Law. Geogre 15:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why I linked to the fresh red link above. I figured anyone interested in writing something about Smith would probably prefer to start from scratch in the right place. Anyway, any poet from the last turn-of-the-century quoted on the Muppet Show must be notable enough, right? I mean, modern popular culture references is the measuring rod for the importance of everything, isn't it? up+l+and 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about sockpuppet tags

Hi, I just left a message on Bunchofgrape's talk page about this, but I don't think they're online right now (but according to my watchlist, you are. Anyway, User:DTC who some suspect of being a sock of User:RJII has been removing the tag on their userpage that says they are suspected of being a sock. I don't know if they are or not (although they do seem quite similar to RJII). What I want to know is, what is the policy regarding removing such notices? Thanks. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 07:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not much use invoking policy where removing tags from userpages is concerned: the community is divided and the policies and guidelines are warzones. See for instance Wikipedia:Removing warnings--not strictly relevant, as sock tags are neither warnings nor on talkpages, but still. I would go with common sense: how good is the suspicion? Are reasons given for it, beyond "See contribs" (yes, a very little more), was it added by a respected editor (yes, I believe it was, though I don't know User:Good Intentions)? It sounds as if you've researched DTC's "content and style". From that, do you think it's a RJII sock? (You don't have to be sure, as it's a tag for suspected, not ascertained, puppetry.) If you do, it would be appropriate to ask an admin to put the tag back and protect the page. However, I do not personally think it would ever be right to block or threaten an editor over the removals (suppose they're not a sock after all?), only to keep the tag in place. I'm willing to do that if you request it--if you strongly suspect they're a sock. Bishonen | talk 07:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

I haven't personally researched it enough to say. But from my interactions with DTC I do suspect it, but not strongly enough for that. I do however tend to trust Aaron's judgement with socks, especially since he has been around the anarchism articles for much longer than I have, and would probably know RJII's style better than most others. I think it would be good if impartial admins were to review the user though and get an idea. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 08:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, not me, sorry. Too much on my plate. Bishonen | talk 08:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Oh, I wasn't even asking you, I was just saying in general. If I have time tomorrow I'll review DTC's history and compare it to RJII, TheIndividualist and IndividualistAnarchist (the last two are recent admitted socks of RJII). If I think it warrants further consideration, I might post to ANI. Oh, and I see I'm "Irresistible" now [23] ;). Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 08:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to hijack the discussion, but what about {{SockpuppetProven}} cases? I've got a user who was verified to have a sock puppet he was using in voting, which was then blocked. However the user (Zonerocks) keeps removing the tag from his userpage, and I am unclear on whether I am allowed to revert this (perhaps not indefinitely, but this all took place in the last few weeks). Any advice would be helpful. -- nae'blis 17:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Sockpupeteer tag is worth fighting over, even in proven cases, as long as the Sockpuppet tags are around. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits

Your edits at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bunchofgrapes have been sophomoric and counterproductive. I'm going to follow BoG's lead here and not waste too much time with you, but edits disruptive of Wikipedia procedure are obnoxious. Your cavalier attitude towards others is worrisome. - MSTCrow 07:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bah humbug. Bishonen | talk 07:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Particularly your opinion that the picture I uploaded of Thomas Killigrew was in fact of Thomas Killigrew. That was beyond the pale. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah? It's not of Thomas Killigrew. It's of William D'Avenant or John Dryden. Besides, not a word about his being one of Charles's spymasters? Geogre 15:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You sure? (Shouldn't any word about spymastery be in Thomas Killigrew, which I haven't touched?) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

He looks an awful lot like Image:J-Dryden.jpg. I haven't touched Thomas Killigrew, either, but Janet Todd is quite sure of it, so I gather it's in whatever current biographies there are of him. We know where and how D'Avenant got to be a Chuck favorite. Killigrew's high status isn't as clear, and spymastering is likely and satisfying. Geogre 16:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramble

Another new one. This one theopolitics again, as mentioned. I'm calling off my trip to CH, as I have reason to hope that I can do this stuff by phone wars. Geogre 17:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Great, a little free time for you! Or...sad, no CH memory lane for you? I'm packing... :-( Will Not Edit Again Till Done With Packing. Bishonen | talk 17:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC).

I want to go, but I don't want to drive there. :-( Anyway, I've now gotten through to a cashier, who has told me that I have a special secret deadbeat code on my file, and I have to wait for Cruella de Ville to call me and flagellate me for being poor for years, which is, of course, what all poor people really need. Then I'll have suffered almost as much as driving 14 of 48 hr and cosmic balance will be restored. Geogre 19:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Where's the grass, weed will do.

Please care for this goat, her owner has temporarily abandoned her

Hello, Sicilia, fancy seeing you here. I'm going to be on wikibreak for a few days myself, you'll have to find your own weed. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC).

Guidance help

Hi Bishonen! Thanks for the offer of guidance with WP:NOR and WP:V, I really appreciate it! Here’s my understanding as it relates to my comments about the baby talking at six months:

For the sake of argument, say there is an indisputably reliable source that says that Natasha’s mother said “Natasha could speak by the age of six months.” Then say there’s an equally reliable source that says it’s impossible for a baby to speak before 12 months of age. WP:V says "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth."

I take that to mean that we can report Natasha’s mother’s statement in the Wikipedia Article, word for word, even though it’s not true. She said it, it’s verifiable.

Where am I going wrong with that? Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 00:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Several things are wrong with it. In the first place, the article is supposed to be about Natasha Demkina, not about her mother, right? I assume you'd mention both those reliable sources (if you didn't, somebody else would), and a foolish, random, and provably false statement about ND by her mother doesn't say anything about ND; it only says things (embarrassing things) about her mother. The article isn't about her mother, and Wikipedia also isn't about embarrassing vulnerable people for no good reason. I call her vulnerable because that's a good word for a person who'll put herself out in the public sphere in such a way. I have no idea if her claims about her daughter are signs of carelessness, memory problems, mendacity... whatever, but (in your hypothetical case) I do know they're not true. Your argument that we can quote them seems to me, if you don't mind my saying so, based on the letter rather than the spirit of the policy. The policies aren't meant to be cherrypicked like that, you're supposed to read and digest the whole of them and get to grips with the spirit of them. Try asking yourself, not "Can we quote it?" but rather "Why would we quote it, to what end?" And now I really am going on wikibreak, please see the top of this page. I'd rather you didn't continue this thread here while I'm away, but you're welcome back on Monday. Bishonen | talk 00:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC).

Award

I'm awarding this award to you:

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I'm awarding this to you for making Wikipedia a better place and for your valued assisstance and patience to me. Martial Law

Also, by the way, welcome back. Martial Law 06:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Martial Law, most kind! Bishonen | talk 08:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

IRC

Oh, sure! I haven't been around much recently due to off-site obligations, but I'm off school this week, so I should have the time. I'll pop on at my first convinience and message you, and we can chat about whatever you need to chat about. --InShaneee 12:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty. I should be on today around 21:00 UTC (I think that's correct). --InShaneee 19:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

At which time I was away from the computer. Oh well... it'll pan out some day, I hope. If not, I'll explain by e-mail, but Real Time would be Real Good for this, so I'll give it a day or two. Hope it's not bugging you. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

Oh no, not at all! I get home from work around that time most days, so if not today, perhaps Wed, Thurs, or Fri? --InShaneee 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Either of those should do me fine. I'll hope for no freak ailments striking on Wednesday night, then, and keep a lookout. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

Indeed. I do hope that tooth feels better! --InShaneee 19:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Bored?

God! It's dull here today, my watch list is hardly moving, where is everyone? Giano | talk 13:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm debating porn. [24] Geogre 14:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Bored? Bored? I wish I was bored. I have a root canal crappola, classes tomorrow, and all my prep time gone west. You guys will have to deal with your aristocratic ennui and your under-the-bed stack all by yourselves. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

• Oh I thought you were very quiet (no pun intended) how very awful for you, I have never had tooth ache in my whole life, and have perfect toothies, all white a shiny, I think it's because I brushed them twice a day as a child and drank all my milk and orange juice! I'm no longer bored, I've been internet shoping and bought lots of new clothes (I bought my famed chest-wig on the internet you know) this also stops Mrs G from becoming bored as she has to pack them all up and send them back when they arrive as they are usually all the wrong colour and size, or else she feels they are not suitable for someone of my age, I always think they will make me look like the model, but sadly they seldom do, in fact the last pair of sun glasses she said made me look like a bluebottle, I'm not sure why I married her sometimes. Hope the toothies clear up - have you tried flossing? Giano | talk 16:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Go away. Freak. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

I forgive your rudeness, and bring you a present instead, to show my magnamitude. By the way I have a new English word turkette but I can't find a way of working it into conversation - any ideas?

Sympathies on the teeth, Bish. I got my copy of Betterton; it's as good as you promised. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it great? Full of meat and matter. Giano, don't concern yourself about the conversation, that'll be moot as soon as your turkette is properly deleted, which I see will be in short order. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

• It is not my turkette, I merely discovered it, I have never used such an object (or please note BoG a "napking ring" shudder in my life. Giano | talk 22:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn, woman. I thought we were done with the endodontics. Sure way to get me to run away, mentioning the E-word. I have that half-done r.c. that's been waiting for infection and premature death for years/decades now, all thanks to the virtues of capitalism and the invisible hand of the free market. That hand rarely carries floss, in the US. I prefer to dive under the bed. Geogre 17:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, this one wasn't doing any waiting. But I'm all better, as the dentist was equipped with a remarkable new invention of no doubt Mediterranean invention, known as "floss". Lo, instant cure! Snort. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

In the UK, floss rots your teeth instead of saves it. If you've seen my bl*g, you know the moods I've been in. Geogre 21:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Love your blåg, honey! Oh, lord, i have a really early train tomorrow. It's horrible, so horrible. :-( But I finally caught Inshaneee on IRC, so what could I do, I'm still up. Good night, everybody! Bishonen | talk 22:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

Wow, and here I thought that last one was the most severe blurting out of existential despair ever (at least ever by me). Camus's dead Arab and Sartre's upset stomach had nothing on it, I thought. Our ends are so far from our beginnings that they scarcely know themselves, I guess (to crib from that American hero of despair, TSE). That reminds me: I should probably give The Four Quartets another go, now that I'm old enough to ignore the critical apparatus and apparatchiks. Geogre 01:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Business as usual

Oooooooh! You used the F-word! You used the F-word! Good for you! But be careful when using that word, Bish. A lot of the people who deserve it are ones who are likely to mistake it for a complement or a come-on. :-) Askolnick 17:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want to be socially accepted on IRC, you kind of have to use it. :-) Bishonen | talk 18:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC).

I wouldn't know. Not only don't I IRC, I'm rather comfortable being a social misfit. Can't you tell? :-) Askolnick 18:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Illuminotus! Trilogy

• The f-word? Seeing fnords again? Been to fjords? I hear the fjords are lovely this time of year, except for the m00se bites. (Was going to call you, but we have a driving appointment for the doctor, and I'm not sure my mind is wholly my own just now.) Geogre 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't make conversation under this heading [adding unprintable word under breath with great self-restraint]. Start a new thread. Show some sense. [Inventing several new epithets and quite surprising myself by not using them]. Idiots. [Oops.] Bishonen | talk 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC).
• Great. Or we could do a strike through of the actual moron, above, as the stench is rather unncecessary. Geogre 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strike through? Please. Remove it if you wish. I was hoping someone would without having to be asked. Bishonen | talk 21:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC).
• You needn't call me an idiot, you know, just because my telepathy is on the blink. Ackoz says that I'm arrogant. I can't be both, unless I'm the president of the United States, and I'm pretty sure that I'm not, as I was even more unelected than he was. I took a self-test at the doctor's office today. According to it, I'm depressed and need medication. Also according to another self test, I have PMS and erectile dysfunction ("Can you perform sexually whenever you desire to?" Well, I don't have a lover, so I'd say that's a big "no") as well as painful shyness and probably several forms of hypertension and HPV. That should make me an object of pity, not scorn. Geogre 00:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, finally! Thank you, darlin. Bishonen | talk 00:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC).
• Finally I'm reduced to an object of pity? You're mean. (Yes, I know what you're referring to.) Geogre 10:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Jane Austen

I haven't made up my mind yet about Carnildo, and probably won't for the next few days. But I thought your points were very well thought out, and extremely well expressed. So well, in fact, that I wonder were you unconsciously copying from Sense and Sensibility, where Elinor was "mortified, shocked, confounded"? Anyway, I appreciate your understanding of how a block log affects some people (though I think others don't seem to mind). I've always been a bit annoyed by this, though the subsequent blocks and the consequences were, of course, far worse. On the other hand, I've seen people just disappearing from Wikipedia after an unsuccessful RfA, so I can't help feeling some admiration for someone who sticks around and keeps working for the project, despite the humiliation or being desysopped. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes well, so long as I'm Mr. Darcy definitely not Mr. Wykham, what do you say Lady Catherine? Giano | talk 21:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I say what I always say, which is go away, freak. Thanks, Ann. Crushed, affronted, chagrined, embarrassed, humbled, was she? Was that when Lucy "confided" her engagement? I bet Elinor had access to the fine resource wordsmyth.net, I never say a word without it for my part. :-) I believe you and I both commented on this "lovetap" block, didn't we? I contemn, detest, abhor, and abominate 'em! :-) Bishonen | talk 22:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC).

Yes, the "mortified, shocked, confounded" emotion was after Elinor's walk with Lucy.[25] It wouldn't, to my mind, have been nearly so effective if she had used the more normal "and", which is why I liked your "affects people, shocks them, insults them". As for "lovetap" blocks, I agree that the inconvenience of not being able to edit is mild compared to the slap in the face; and when administrators block established users without warning, when the block could not reasonably have been predicted, I take no leave of them, I send no compliments to their mothers, I am most seriously displeased![26] AnnH ♫ 18:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh, first smile today. I send them a "Yo mama so fat!" (I tell my son that sometimes, it confuses him deeply.) Bishonen | talk 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

Watch it, girlie! You're nearing my vocabulary now. Dr. Johnson

No, you watch your back, boyo. See me making a grab right here for your Eloquent Wikipedian of the Year trophy? Bishonen | talk 14:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

See, I'd have added, "And there's an end on't!" It's a fine line between genius and prose, though. (Now, I must go flourish my cape or cap a Floridian or something.) Geogre 15:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, oh, would that be a 22-year-old hot Floridian? Bishonen | talk 15:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

All hot chicks must be defended, as they are, without a doubt, all legitimate if there is a chance that they will talk dirty. Geogre 19:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure what dear Aunt Jane would think about hot chicks being discussed in a thread that's named after her. AnnH ♫ 18:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cats

So I went to write what I thought might be a new article on Satanic School, but, of course, an uncharacteristically verbose (three whole lines!) port from the Nutall Superbrief Blurb of Literature was already there. I noticed that it was in only one category -- that being Nutall -- so I went to put it into some more. Our literature category does not have subcats for Renaissance, Augustan, Romantic, Victorian, Edwardian, Georgian, Modern, Post-mortem literatures, so this article, which is quintessentially Romanticism, has no subcat to belong to. If a body wanted a ton of edits on categories, it would be an easy thing to create subcats for all the breakdown of academe and then start trying to but things in their proper boxes. Geogre 23:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there is bound to be a WikiProject to do that sort of useful task... Wikipedia:WikiProject Books? -- ALoan (Talk) 00:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't they the people who just put big templates on pages saying, "We found it, and now we've claimed it, and we think it isn't right until it looks like the article for The Giver?" Filiocht, upon whom be peace, actually wanted a literature project. For some reason, it never really cohered or gathered knowledgeable volunteers the way that, say, ProjectDigimon did. Geogre 01:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

For being so levelheaded and helping me out in these silly revert wars. I havent thanked you before because I was trying to lay low but sometimes I just cant help but edit. Anyway, I do appreciate your stewardship of wikipedia and if you ever need help with anything...just let me know. Feel free to delete this comment at anytime. Ha. Jasper23 02:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha.

. My pleasure. I hate that stupid "Keep my beautiful template on your page or else"—unfortunately there seems to be more and more of it. Just let me know if anybody tries it on again. Bishonen | talk 04:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

Que??

Do you need a massage?. lol --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Some other time, Woohoo dear. And what a waste of time—see the next edit? I decided to comment out the random mess instead. Not that plenty of the so-called "biographical overview" isn't equally irrelevant. Some article. Bishonen | talk 05:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox

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

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

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

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

Fire of London

Hi, I've just sent you an email containing information on the Great Fire of London. I don't like to put it on your page as I'm not sure if one can edit user space. It is a bit long to paste here. Regards Aspern 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Aspern, very thoughtful! Bishonen | talk 18:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

Um

Not to throw oil on a fire, but are you aware Kylu has blocked Giano for 48 hrs? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Two awards

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		This is to award you for your gentle disposition. Martial Law

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		As does this award. Martial Law

These awards are for you for being of valued assisstance, patience towards me. Keep up the good work. Martial Law 04:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC):)

WP, a dangerous place to be

I'm of course refering to the following report. El_C 06:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm, but if we exchange PNGs for SVGs or GIFs, we'll do less to piss off the Indonesian military. up+l+and 07:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that we're funding the Papua New Guinea Defense Force every time we look at a picture of Publicgirluk? Who knew? Geogre 11:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

InShanee

If you'll recall, you banned me from posting on AN/I, after i posted a complaint documenting being harassed by Admin User:Inshanee [[27]]. I see another user has voiced a nearly identical complaint [[28]] which is confirmed by the viewpoint of other Admins. InShanee continues to post threats and unsolicited opinions on my user talk page [[29]] as well. I have continually asked him to cease. Could you please look into this? It's really out of hand, as I hope this new complaint helps to show. It is not this person's place to be a content moderator. Thanks. Sarastro777 07:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Sarastro777, I'd prefer that you not ride your complaint against InShaneee on top of mine. While you may be experiencing a similar bullying attitude from InShaneee, the conduct for which I filed a complaint is not quite the same as what you're complaining about. An administrator can remove some kinds of personal attacks and an administrator can block or threaten to block editors for any serious violation of Wiki's No Personal Attack Rule. That's not the same as being a "content moderator." What InShaneee did to me was to falsely call my editing a personal attack, remove it, and then threatened to block me if I put my comments back. That's censorship and an abuse of his administative powers. Thanks for your understanding. Askolnick 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bathos

You know Pope's definition of "Bathos," I'm sure, and I trust you to know the modern meaning, as well. Take a look at the contention between myself and another editor at Bathos, if you get a chance, and weigh in on the talk page. My feeling is that nothing allegorical, much less anything allegorical and mystical, can suffer from "Bathos," because the usual rules are in abeyance. This is aside from when and whether an image moves from the bathos to the sublime. Whether Pope himself would have applied the definition to the Bible or not (and we know that answer), I feel pretty strongly that no mystical allegories are susceptible. Anyway, your thoughts, even if they're contrary to mine, are welcomed. Geogre 14:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

statem

Seeing how thou art. Art thou available by phone, or art thou hiddenest amongst the heathen sacrifices of Odin's grove? Or hast the rage of the pagan finally driven thee to the depths? Geogre 11:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Egregious wikistupidities hath driven me from the site. :-( Phoneth in a couple of hours if you like. I'm just going out now. Bishonen | talk 11:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

Art thou saying, "Art thou is the concealment of art thou"? Askolnick 15:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am reminded of the words of an old song [30]: Why do the heathen rage and put their faith in a vain thing? I was afraid that such might be the case. You wert driven from the site but not to thy haven home of e-mail (four words never before yoked together, that). I am thinking of writing something essayistic, myself. I might ring your bells around 2100 GMT, or when I see an ikon telling me that you're there. Geogre 15:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A Favour

Bishonen, I keep having an unwelcome editor on my page. No doubt hoping I will break the three revert so I can be conveniently banned. Would you be so kind as to ask him to desist and take his comments away with him. He seems rather slow in taking the hint that he is unwelcome there. Have you seen ALoan's new page on FAC it really is very good indeed. Giano | talk 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - such a tiring day, not in the mood for dancing the night away, but that's what I've got to go and do. See you in the morning!............Giano | talk 18:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Factoid

With regard to a certain fiery event I would like to draw you attention to a factoid that may have escaped your attention... The eteostichon "LorD haVe MerCI Vpon Vs" (L+D+V+M+C+I+V+V=1666) has been used in connexion with that place & year though I can not to trace it to its origins (some further research might be appropriate). Hope you'll have use for it. Happy editing, or vacationing, or cursing us all, or whatever you are enjoying doing right now. Ha det så bra, as they say elsewhere... 87.122.7.200 19:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think the source for that was graffiti found on a wall during the plague, rather than the fire. It was a common enough thing for an age where the use of Latin was part of every educated person's baggage. Where, though, it entered modern currency is another matter. I, too, have encountered the reference. It's unlikely, therefore, that we can chalk it up to a ... nov.... Defoe? Journal of the Plague Year? Maybe that's the source. Geogre 20:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dmitry Merezhkovsky's the Romance of Leonardo Da Vinci

As I lay there, my ears rattling with pain, somehow I still managed (when I got the lucid chance) to get half way through Dmitry Merezhkovsky's 500-page (how was I even able to carry it — well, thanks to my gentle care, it's now physically split into a few pieces, that's 1953 hardcover for ya!; I would have actually prefered softness under these circumstances) the Romance of Leonardo Da Vinci (oddly, the Hebrew translation I have is only titled Leonardo Da Vinci). Have you read it, Bishongeogre? Best, El_C 06:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your ears are going to hurt some more today, dear Elsie. :-( Bishonen | talk 09:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

Grbrr. ElC is an abbreviation for El Commandante!; and you haven't answered the question! :( El_C 10:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, have I read an actual book? Of course not. What do you think the Internet is for? Bishonen | talk 10:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

Why must you mock me, again. :( El_C 10:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out my wikimood. It compels me. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

Yet he was red-baiting enough to support Hitler. Fucking idiot; traitor of the masses. Brilliant author, nonetheless. El_C 11:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Awesomeness Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Awarded to Bishonen for being the most consistent, thoughtful, sensible and levelheaded person I've encountered on WP. Anchoress 09:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Great Scott! Me? And here I feel like I'm spending more and more of my wikitime in a flap and a rage[31]...! Thank you very much. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

Pffft, trifling. I noticed you didn't do a flounce, you just took a break. Besides, you on a bad day are better than most editors on an average day. IMO. Anchoress 09:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha, how about now[32]? Eh? Bishonen | talk 10:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

Oh yeah, you're outta control. 'Remove the Barnstar of Diligence; Attach the Barnstar of Intransigence!' Anchoress 10:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your email

Yes, I did. Sorry for not replying, I am always useless at responding to Wikipedia emails. It's a bit of a crap situation for everyone concerned. I've been away from Wikipedia more or less for a few months and my first impression when I got back into it the other day was how angry so many people were... I'm starting to feel old with all these new admins running around slapping people down. The Land 09:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice till now that you removed Daniel Bryant's original expression of his problem with my language use (Profanity? Profanity ? Fucking is a religion now?) in the form of a template. Cripes, what a low point. Thank you, The Land, for saving my eyes from beholding it. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

You can delete this if you want.

		The Surreal Barnstar
		I hereby award you, Bishonen, the FuckWITtery Barnstar, for chutzpah in the face of asshattery. Anchoress 10:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

		The Surreal Barnstar
		I hereby award you, Bishonen, the Flapdoodle Barnstar, for chutzpah in the face of .. well... everything. The Land 10:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is considered "non-provacative"...

Please do not add profanities to WP:AN/I. I, in particular, find such language to to be offensive. Feel free to remove this comment if you change your use of certain phrases, such as f***wittery on WP:AN/I. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. El_C 10:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." I'm sure there is a number of alternatives to the term used by Bishonen. Also, that only refers directly to the article namespace - "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements.". Daniel.Bryant 10:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, on the assumption that you really mind it, as opposed to merely looking for things to complain about, I will exchange if for some suggestion by wordsmyth.net. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

Thank you. Feel free to scourge this section from your page as you see fit. Daniel.Bryant 10:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop giving me permission to remove your comments. Do you really not see that that's provocative, in a discussion where my contention is that I can do as I please about that? Think about it. Btw, I don't habitually remove stuff from my page by any means. It takes a lot of inappropriateness before I'll do that. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

I thought, from your comments, that you were the deletionist type. Sorry about the confusion. Daniel.Bryant 10:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a good laugh at fu*kwittery myself ;). Marskell 11:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Gosh I've only just seen this section - who are you calling a fuck-wit - anyone I know? Giano 17:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You gotta keep up, Dracula! The fuckwittery is about to get archived—I can't even remember how it started, though the friendly barnstars were certainly nice to get. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

EE

Okay, sorry to bother you about this again (I'm sure you're as sick to death of this situation as I am), but EE's returned and is again edit warring at Cool (song) and quarreling on the related talk page. He first parachuted into the talk page yesterday claiming to be three different editors, none of whom were EE (really, how many Gwen Stefani/Shakira/Legend of Zelda fans edit Wikipedia?); having his bluff called, he's now gone back to reverting edits that I've justified and explained to death on the talk page (including rewriting his hopelessly ornate prose - apparently, according to him, "reminisces about" is preferable to "remembers"). I was wondering if this type of behaviour was covered by the ArbCom ruling on him, because I'm considering leaving a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, but I'm not sure how these things work. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 10:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it's covered. Amply. IMO you should ban him from the pages he disrupts, and then report on the enforcement page that you have done so. I suggest banning for two days, since it says "a week in case of repeat offenses" (a strangely feeble time indication, which sounds as if it's meant for blocks rather than bans). Don't forget to ban from the talk pages also, otherwise you might as well just semiprotect the articles. Now, to ban from a page means, as you know, to tell an editor that they're not allowed to edit it. I realize the problem there, since it's a cloud of IPs that needs to be told, but you'll just have to post a message on the talkpages of the IPs involved so far (obviously, there's no need to check whether each of the IPs has separately been disruptive, it's disruption by the individual that's at issue). And why not reinforce it by posting the message on the article talkpages also. Then report on the enforcement page. Then, if/when you find that the ban isn't respected, report that, semiprotect the articles, consider whether to semiprotect the talkpages also (but that is a very, very, awkward thing to have to do) or merely keep reverting the editor, and do what you can to block him, because that is also what a ban means: if it's not respected, you block. If you're not savvy with range blocks, appeal to the arbcom to help, ask them how long the block can be, post an appeal for range blocking or other clever technical solution on ANI, and ask somebody like Mackensen or Essjay directly.

Sorry to be telling you what to do it rather than do it myself, but I'm not dealing with Hollow Wilerding any more. I'm tired of it, I have better things to do, and it's not like my previous efforts have been appreciated. I don't need telling twice that I've "taunted" a sensitive user, or to have my friends threatened with banning for trying to help.[33] It's somebody else's turn. (Don't you get involved than you can help, either, EM—just try to protect the pages you care about, that's what I think is worth doing.) Grrr, somebody award me a barnstar of self-pity, quickly! Bishonen | talk 12:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

(The Canadian school year began today or yesterday, and EE, who said he might come back in September, shows up in full plumage at the school library. Another academic year of fun and games. If we get the IP's, we can go straight to the librarian. This child is a mess. Geogre 12:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC) )

The Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience

Thanks for responding. I completely understand that you're not going to deal with HW anymore; I'd do the same myself, but unfortunately we both worked on that specific article quite a bit. (Long story short: there was a big dispute involving myself and EE/Winnermario regarding the coverage of pop music on Wikipedia; I helped "save" the article from imminent FAC failure as my way of extending an "olive branch" to WM, and that gesture turned around and bit me soon enough.) Anyway, I thought I was too close to the dispute to place a ban myself, so I posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, and Bunchofgrapes has done it. I disagree with the idea of banning - or "cautioning" or otherwise - Giano for what he said to EE; his remark seemed rather harmless, particularly given the circumstances. I don't want a good editor like you to feel stressed, so here's a Zen Garden Award in honour of your "extraordinary patience in the face of toil or turmoil". This is well and truly deserved. Extraordinary Machine 13:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh—thanks very much—I only just saw this post. Very beautiful garden! (Have you seen my Zen wikimoods? :-)) Sorry for my conflicting messages, where I first declared I'd do nothing, and then blithely (or, rather, angrily), turned up on Bunchofgrapes's page to ban HW from it. I've sent you an e-mail about that. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

ALoan

I've been out for a couple of hours, flicking arownd the watchlist, it looks like ALoan has done a runner in disgust with the Arb-com. Has he? of have I got the wrong end of the goat. I can't stand the thought of a wikipedia without ALoan, he's like you and Geogre - part of the furniture. I'm berieved, we are all bereived tell me , please, I have it wrong. Giano | talk 12:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have it right. :-( I hope he'll be back. You know he was very, and uncharacteristically, angry about the proposed ban of you in the EE case, too. And notice the dickish commentary about him on the RFA talkpage, by people who don't know him? I just told Werdna on IRC... well, never mind what I told him, maybe I'll post it on the wiki as well, but I have to go out now. Bishonen | talk 13:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

I did see the comments about him by by some people who do not know him, and forced myself for once not to press save, otherwise i probably would have been banned for obscenities. his email won't work either. This is terrible. BTW is that D Bryant allowed to keep fiddling with my archives, because he's changed his mind over his daft template, I though people were not supposed to tamper with archives. Can I revert him? Anyhow I'm now more upset about ALoan than anyhthing else since Giano | talk 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you can revert him, but it would be pretty ungracious. All he's doing, that I can see, is removing stuff he posted himself—striking through it, so that the archive is still complete, and still contains everything that was posted on your page—and apologising. I wouldn't revert that if I were you. On the other hand, if I've missed him messing with anybody else's posts (=yours), then, yes, it would be appropriate to revert. Bishonen | talk 16:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

• If I want to be iformed at all, I need to come here. Another example of how badly uniformed I am: I didn't even know he was that upset. ALoan is one of the cornerstones of the serious content folks. Heck, he passed me in terms of contributions. For every one serious article I write, he has about four that are smaller and nimbler but as good. Geogre 17:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Informing: the discussion is mostly taking place at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. It has, of course, become poisonous. If we blocked for genuine disruption, rather than for "defiant and inflammatory" responses, we should have considered blocking the 'crats before they could make this disruptive choice. I am another one of those who have been contemplating the ideas of turning in my bit or walking away. I recognize that I am currently too angry to make such decisions rationally, or do anything much useful at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Look I know I leave and come back ten minutes later, but that's cos I'm foreign and have a foreign temperament, you lot can't do that cos you're not foreign (well Bishonen is but she's from a rational race) and if you leave you might not come back - if you follow my logic, and that's why I'm upset about ALoan cos he's anglosaxon too like you yanks, allthough some of you do have funny surnames like that Monica Lewinski, but I always though she seemed a nice enough girl too Giano | talk 18:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You know how come I'm still here? I'm terribly uniformed. I don't look. If I close my eyes, put my fingers in my ears, and hum very loudly, I can pretend things are operating. Then, when I see this stuff, I can scream at the pinheads for being pinheads. I regret to say that I'll probably look at the talk:RFA, and I regret the regret I'm going to feel for looking. (Giano's Italian. You guys know what those people are like. We Anglo-Saxons are all cheerful and happy, and then we start dropping nuclear bombs while saying, "See what you made me do?") Geogre 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and you bombed Palermo! Have I ever told you about my Great Aunt Rosaria's wartime experience with a American GI? Giano | talk 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[Darkly.] I'm of the bork bork bork people. We smoulder. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

Yes dear quite, as I was saying this GI who was also a very close friend of my mother (chocolate and stockings were in short supply you see) well he was from Idaho, well isn't that an almost supernatural co-incidence, cos I'be always felt this eerie bond to BoG, and my first words were "Yes siree" which is unusual in a Sicilian baby - these things cannot be explained. Giano | talk 19:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well aren't you the chipper gentile today, Giano? I almost feel like rising to the bait and actually being so dense as to protest that I am from Oregon, but surely I wouldn't. In any case, I'm pretty sure I'm not your real father. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Only "pretty" sure I note - could there be a chance? If it's not you who is it —Giano | talk 21:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can't keep up with all this. But it is all making me very depressed. Paul August ☎ 21:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why - are you from Idaho too? — Giano | talk 21:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, it's Super Friends talk page blanking day. Mine is full of stuff, because I figure a real sign that I've left will be that no one will be able to tell the difference. Geogre 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, moving this response down to where The Land may actually see it

The Land, I didn't notice till now that you removed Daniel Bryant's original expression of his problem with my language use ("Profanity"? "Profanity" ? Fucking is a religion now?) in the form of a template. Cripes, what a low point. Thank you, The Land, for saving my eyes from beholding it. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

LOL. Yes, I saw it and thought that, while removing comments from him to you was moderately impolite, it would be much more impolite to make him clean up the bits of exploded Bishonen from the walls. ;-) The Land

User:Giano's talk page

I'm sorry but that level of extreme incivility is never excusable. I've reverted once, and will not do so again. I beg you not to restore that disgusting, petty, malicious message. --Tony Sidaway 22:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't edit war. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

There is no policy that allows the removal of "personal attacks" without archiving them. In case no one has figured it out, yet, that idiotic "NPA" is at the heart of all of these crises. More fools are conned every day into believing that there is a policy that says that people are blocked or banned for saying impolite things, that they can redact each other over it, etc. User talk pages are the business of the users to tend, one way or the other. Geogre 01:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord, Tony, listen to yourself! "Extreme incivility, disgusting, petty, malicious"?! Oh, really? I'd hate to hear what you would call something that is actually disgusting and malicious. And even if it were, don't you remember what your mother told you? "Sticks and stones can break your bones, but incivility will never hurt you." I'll tell you what around here is really disgusting, petty, and malicious: Censorship, like you just did to did. Askolnick 02:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I just point out my beautiful banner in fact says: "may not receive respect they feel they deserve". "May" expresses no certainty, and "they feel" implies they will receive respect but perhaps will not be called Sir/madam or whatever it that is what they feel they deserve. Giano | talk 06:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my banner now, because I am so frightened. Accusing me of "disgusting, petty, malicious message" Surely that is a personal attack on me, cos the meassage was not so. Can't he be banned for that? Giano | talk 08:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Most amusing, Giacomo. Hey, your long post on your own page—response to Askolnick etc—is absolutely great! Clarifies a lot of stuff beautifully. Bishonen | talk 08:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Thanks Sweatheart, on the other matter pleasywaesyweedlingpleasy pretty please? Giano | talk 08:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What other matter? Blocking Tony Sidaway..? You are kidding. You won't catch me blocking for personal attacks, even if that was one, which I doubt (see how it's an attack on your message, not on you?). I fully endorse Geogre's remarks about "that idiotic 'NPA'" above. Some people may think you're serious if you go on like that, you know! Bishonen | talk 08:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC). P.S., but if you're frightened, don't worry, dear, I'll protect you! Bishonen | talk 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

• What other matter? Bishonen!!!! My marriage proposal! Have you forgoten it already - I'm devestated. The pink solitaire, well I shall keep it now! Giano | talk 08:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• You'll have to take that up with Elsie, we're just setting the date. But if there's a vacancy in your harem, hmmm.... I have to admit I'm intrigued. Bishonen | talk 08:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Oh him! The creature from the Fjiords (or whatever bogs are called in those parts) You don't want a honemoon in my Villa Splendido overlooking Como? Running your fingers trough my silkient chest wig that is up to you - I wash my hands of you. Giano | talk 09:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ALoan II

Seen this [34] It's quite humbling to read, and I'm not going to spoil the stark simplicity by posting underneath it, but I hope it's read and taken on board in many high ranking quarters of this encyclopedia. Giano | talk 11:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. If a naive and befuddled newcomer may be permitted an observation: the administrative war now raging against "incivility" reminds me of the Vietnam war general who explained the U.S. war strategy as "destroying the village to save it." The biggest threat to civility in Wikinam is not the hot-headed posts of angry editors. It's the cold, calculating intollerance of criticism and dissent. Just as the U.S. policy sought to label Vietnam nationalism as "communist expansionism," certain administrative warlords are attempting to label dissent and criticism as "incivility." If they continue, they just may save the village by destroying it.Askolnick 12:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well don't give up on the place, there are a lot of good admins here, who are in command of huge respect by not expecting it. The admins who hang out on this page for instance. Sadly people seem to be confusing brusqueness, and direct speaking for incivility, and a lot of people seem surprised when their own incivil or bizarre actions lead to incivility in response. It's a problem and it's not going away. Incidentally if you are new, you won't know that ALoan is in my view one of Wikipedia's most respected editors because of his contributions and impecable manners. Giano | talk 12:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If I may butt in, I've been thinking about this issue recently too, and I think in part it can be attributed to the phenomenon of the cure causing more of the disease, or rather the remedy causing more of the problem. The same way that a 1-800 number at a vacuum company will prompt way more people to call for help instead of reading the manual, and that some people believe bar brawls and shootings outside nightclubs would decrease if cities reduced police patrols and instead paid people to hand out free flowers at closing time, I think admin intervention (of a certain type) is escalating the incivility and conflict. Perhaps there should be a civility patrol, of people who are especially gentle souls, who can post genial, non-threatening warnings/suggestions on the talk pages of people who have been accused of incivility; the lack of 'threat' associated with a warning from an admin might de-escalate as well as, but less invasively than, the cooldown blocks currently in use.

But in fact I think the problem is bigger, and regrettably I think it's because of the way the site is run. I'm not a dictator, but I think the lack of hard-and-fast regulations makes it very stressful for the people who shoulder the responsibility of helping the site run smoothly. I've seen many instances here recently (and I've seen this a lot in RL too) where people with authority and responsibility, or even just a sense of responsibility come to the community and say something isn't working, and 'the community' says in its wisdom that no, it is working, everyone (like Animal Farm) just has to work harder, but it is in fact the ones asking for a change who are doing all the work. I see this most blatantly over requests to lock pages due to vandalism. There are a lot of people who just get fed up with WP because they can't stand to watch vandalism happen without doing something about it, but they're too pooped to keep up with aggressive cells. IMO there are several key deficiencies in the way the community is run that are directly causing burnout, and I'm not trying to deflect responsibility from the admins people have been discussing, but I think the recent behaviour is, if not burnout, a result of a deficiency in the community's order. Anchoress 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Giano. What really gets me is the hypocricy of the administrative warlords whose censorship and threats are anything but civil. Have they no capacity for self-inspection? Or is the enforcement of civility just a guise for self-aggrandizement or power grabbing? Askolnick 12:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

YES!!!!! [/me steps on the louse] Bishonen | talk 12:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

• <conflict>::::* I think Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is probably the place to continue this discussion, but the way things are at the moment we will probably all be banned, so I'm shutting up (a new experience for me). Giano | talk 13:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

From the perspective of a long-time journalist, if this fight continues to escalate, it will soon get the attention of reporters who cover science, education, the Internet, and the media. Wiki's problems have already drawn much news coverage. It seems to me that Wiki's Civil(ity) War is going to be the next headline maker. Askolnick 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo got promoted anyway? That's insane! Everyone else needs 75-80% approval. I guess you don't if two members of ArbCom vote for you. To promote him anyway is not simply a question of changing the goalposts, but intentionally throwing scorn on an enormous number of people who voted against him. It's not just a reward for him: it's a statement that the others should not be heard. It may indeed be time for a no confidence motion or for leaving. Geogre 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't know? I tried to inform you, up there somewhere yesterday. ALoan's latest written statements mirror my thoughts well enough. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good heavens, Geogre, now you notice? Bishonen | talk 18:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

• Is it possible to call for votes of no confidence in the arb-com? Giano | talk 18:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but it's an elective position, so you can do what you think is right when the time comes. Newyorkbrad 18:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No I'm far too urbane and lazy to man a barricade, I may get shot or banned Giano | talk 19:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, if I don't see another FAC from you by the weekend, I'll nominate you for ArbCom.... Newyorkbrad 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mail

It's your lucky night!!! I've just proposed agian......Lothario

OK, dear. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

RfArb comment

For Grapey.

This is marvelous stuff, Bish. Everybody should go read it, now. You get a sundae. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, Grapey! A sundae is just what I could do with. You deserve a nice bunch of grapes! Here you are. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Have a very small goat for all your wisdom G'como

Talk about coals to Newcastle! Newyorkbrad 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just not fair! It's like eating my own head. Sadly I can't quickly find a free Bishōnen image and turn the tables. :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, small Sicilia. G'como, I hope you know that when I said you're annoying, I did mean you 're annoying. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

bzzzz bzzzzzzz, sting Giano | talk 20:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no....This may help

Oh no, you're in a bad mood. This will help:

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I'm awarding this to you for your efforts to make Wikipedia better and for your much valued assisstance to me. Martial Law

Hope this helps. After all you've been of great assissstance to me many times. Martial Law 00:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Bish, Welcome Back. Martial Law 00:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

HELLO!!!

Oh, it is NICE to hear from one of my favorite people on this poor ol' site!! Thank you so much for making me feel welcome. I swear that I thought I'd be run off of Wikipedia on a rail. The reception I've gotten is truly appreciated. I can't tell you how much yours means to me. - Lucky 6.9 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It was lovely to see your page finally turn up on my watchlist, Lucky!

Where have you been? Bishonen | talk 09:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

Ghirlandajo

Your participation would be welcome at User talk:Grafikm fr#Ghirlandajo. --Ideogram 05:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, I think I've just stumbled on the root of the problem here [35]. Giano | talk 07:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how that is the root of the problem. --Ideogram 07:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, the problem appears to have solved itself. --Ideogram 08:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What's got into people

Hi Bish, Suddenly, everyone has a right not to be offended? I don't get it. When I arrived, it was only a handful of newbies who cared what people said and thought about them. Suddenly, who said what first and better take it back or else is all I see. Is it just that I'm spending more time on people's talk pages? Or is the encyclopedia finished and it's time to lock all the pages and send everyone home? It seems that improving the encyclopedia has reached the point of diminishing returns, and the politics is becoming more important than the outcome. Sigh. Ben Aveling 08:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ben. Yes, the encyclopedia is done, now comes the next great project: the civility drive. I propose upgrading the RFA process by requiring all admin candidates to take this simple test:

You block a person for Personal Attacks and write them a block message.

1. Do you call them a) by their name, b) "asshole", c) "my friend"?
2. Which of these phrases would you use to announce the block: a) you have been blocked, b) you have been given a time-out, c) I'm giving you an opportunity to reflect?
3. Which of these policies/guidelines would you recommend to the blockee? a) WP:NPA, b) WP:AGF, c) WP:CIVIL?

   That was a trick question, you must recommend all of them. Here's the real question: when you recommend these pages, would you use the verb a) to see, b) to review, c) to get a load of?

4. Do you tell them that they are welcome to contribute as long as they remain civil? a) sure, and also that I'm trying to help them contribute more constructively, b) hell no, c) yes.
5. You should mention their attitude. Do you tell them it needs a) fixing, b) improvement, c) adjustment?
6. In this space, add your own suggestions for helpful things to say: ...............................

For a perfect score, the correct answers are c, c, b, a, c. Note that 1b is very bad, go away and try again next year. 5b is somewhat acceptable. One good answer for question 6 would be "This is not a punishment", but it is hoped that you will be creative.

Bishonen | talk 16:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

Oh, this is useful. In fact I just blocked someone for personal attacks. Let me take some notes and head over there. "Adjusment"... hmm... "opportunity to reflect..." good... what about WP:NOT a battlefield, can I use that? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[Shudder] Oh, wow, I'd forgotten you're Mr Stern Administrator. WP:NOT is only to be used for the toughest nuts. You know, people lacking in full public repentance even after they've been branded and shamed on ANI. Your real problem users. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

Got it. You know me, I never actually block for NPA. My NPA blocks are usually shorthand for "You appear to be in the middle of an angry rampage and determined to get yourself indef'd, maybe just maybe if I get my short block in first, I can keep that from happening." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Liked this one: (after some difs...) "I don't know what rule this breaks, but I hope it is clear this attitude cannot be tolerated". Would that score some points on your upgraded RFA test? Read it a bit before your (Bishonen) Ghirlandajo statement, which I - like other people I see below - liked even more.--Van helsing 12:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Van Helsing, indeed, the author of that would ace such a simple test. Here's some more of his incisive logic: edit summary here edit summary here, discussion here. He's a WP:CABAL mediator, I bet he's good at it. Oh, and all compliments gratefully swallowed whole. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC).

(outdenting) Is that sarcasm? I was going to leave this conversation alone, but since you seem to be talking about me I might as well join in. Just to be absolutely clear: are you criticizing me for being uncivil? --Ideogram 04:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Bishonen, but I know that I would never criticize you for being uncivil. Could I get blocked for thinking it? Askolnick 05:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideogram: yes, I am. I apologize for doing it indirectly like this. I was going to criticize you on your own page, but when I got there you had archived the offending material, so I meant to let it slide. Apparently I couldn't resist blowing off a little steam when a visitor quoted you. It would obviously have been better to explain my problem to you directly, and I'll do that now, if you like. Or archive this thread, as you archived material I assume you had some regrets about. Let me know which you'd prefer. Bishonen | talk 11:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

I'm quite happy to talk to you about it. My main issue is, why are you defending Ghirlandajo's right to be "annoying" while criticizing me for doing the same thing? Note also that I was more bothered by Ghirlandajo's tendency to revert-war while refusing to discuss. --Ideogram 14:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about that but about this; I haven't studied your revert wars, and have no opinion about them. What concerned me was seeing you post edits like these, and to insist[36], when reproached, on a sandbox analogy with Ghirlandajo ("he did it, so I'm gonna do it!"), to "prove" your "right" to make unprovoked insults and to triumphantly announce that you intend to go on giving people "a taste of their own medicine". I blinked in surprise when I read that. We've met before, and it wasn't what I expected from you. The best thing you can do to promote civility on the site is to lead by example, not level down to make a point. Also, about your analogy, please consider that you have pretensions that Ghirlandajo doesn't: to be a guardian of civility, to lecture others on it, to be a mediator (if you still do that, I don't know). Especially for those roles, your first concern should be your own civility—to be civil always, including to people who speak brusquely to you. I was going to make these points on your page but refrained when I saw you had archived your reply to Giano so it wasn't visible any more—I assumed/hoped that you'd started to regret it. Bishonen | talk 17:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

I don't understand why you say I have pretensions. I'm just saying that we should all obey the same rules, so if you are going to excuse Ghirlandajo for being uncivil, you certainly shouldn't criticize me for the same thing. Either being uncivil is bad or it isn't. I would certainly prefer it if everyone was civil, but I'm not about to make the effort if other people don't. --Ideogram 21:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for interjecting into your private conversation, but in my view we certainly should all obey the same rules - that is, follow accepted norms of civil, rational discourse. Are you seriously suggesting that the proper response to someone who you think is uncivil, is to be uncivil back? We will end up in the land of the blind men, where no-one can see, that way (and heaven help our article on elephants then). Being uncivil is bad; being deliberately uncivil as a response to perceived incivility in others is worse. If you are finding it an effort to be civil (as an increasing number of people seem to recently, whether by accident or design), may I suggest that you count to ten, take a deep breath of fresh air, and consider whether you really want to be uncivil. (If nothing else, if someone else is being uncivil, then being icily polite back throws their incivility into higher relief, and may shame them into tempering their behaviour.) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Interject all you want to, ALoan, it's not a conversation any more as my part of it is over in any case. I've said my say, I don't see any advantage in repeating it with variations. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

Well since you made it clear you are disappointed in me, I hope you don't mind if I say I am disappointed in you for being unwilling to discuss it. --Ideogram 21:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

All I want is for you people who are defending Ghirlandajo to admit that it is bad for him to be uncivil. Do we agree on that? --Ideogram 21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is bad for anyone to be uncivil. But what you find uncivil, I and others may not. It is incumbent on every editor to make reasonable efforts to try to avoid others perceiving incivilty in what they say and do, but I can't help it if you take umbrage at my always-reasonable comments and actions :) -- ALoan (Talk) 22:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case I'll continue. Oh, yes, we're agreed on that. My position isn't that incivility should be condoned or approved, it's that incivility should not be so eagerly sanctioned: RFAR'd, RFC'd, or (especially) blocked. It's not the case that everything that's not sanctioned is all right. Now, your statement that "If he doesn't get sanctioned, neither will I" seems to say that as long as you don't get sanctioned for it, it's all right to be uncivil. I don't think that at all. Did you notice I complained, in my RFAR statement, of Ghirlandajo's incivility to me? Did you notice he apologized? (Answer: yes, you did, you even mentioned it and praised him for it.) Do I see any signs of you apologizing to Giano and Pan Gerwazy? (Answer: no, I don't.) See how your analogy works both ways? And a final question: if you were to apply for adminship, would you like to see people quote some of these things you've been saying here back to you? Like for instance "I would certainly prefer it if everyone was civil, but I'm not about to make the effort if other people don't"? See, that's wrong-headed and petulant and rankly against Wikipedia policy. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

I had never seen Ghirlandajo apologize before, which is why I made a special note of it and as a result recommended the RFAr be dropped. That really was my problem with Ghirlandajo, that he never seemed to admit that incivility was a problem. He was always assuming the problem was something else.

Apologizing is an extraordinary act, not something that can be required of people. I hope you agree with that. I never would have said "Ghirlandajo must be forced to apologize", forced insincerity is pointless. The fact that Ghirlandajo decided to apologize on his own is what makes it sincere and extraordinary. I might go so far as to say the fact that he apologized shows he can be a better man than I, and I respect him for it.

Now that we agree that incivility is undesirable, the next question is how can we discourage it? ALoan suggested above that we set an example by continuing to be civil. Do you think I didn't try that? What do you think was the result? Do you really think I should keep trying something that doesn't work?

Going to Arbcom is not a good solution, but we tried everything else. Certainly if Ghirladajo left Wikipedia it would have been bad for Wikipedia, but the question is whether that is worse than people avoiding him and letting him rule his little fiefdom of articles. Ultimately that's a decision only the Arbcom can make.

You should note that we agree on almost all the major issues. We agree that Ghirlandajo's civility is undesirable. We agree that Ghirlandajo has improved of late, and as a result the RFAr should be dropped. As far as I can tell we only disagree on one tactic, my allowing myself to express my true feelings (resulting in incivility) in order to make a point.

It may not have been the best tactic to choose, but I was in fact getting very frustrated and didn't know what else to do. We are all human, and ultimately the only way to work beyond our mistakes is to assume good faith and discuss things. Before I was concerned because Ghirlandajo seemed to refuse to discuss anything. Now that he is more amenable, I welcome him to Wikipedia.

As for adminship, if someone were so deluded as to nom me, I would gently decline and suggest they seek counselling. --Ideogram 22:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I will also add that by being deliberately incivil in an effort to get people to admit that incivility is bad (duh), you are not only violating WP:CIVIL yourself but also WP:POINT. Yet note carefully that we are discussing this with you, not blocking you or hauling you before arbcom. Sometimes the best thing to do is tell someone you are disappointed with their behavior and leave it at that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Makt är icke blott makt, utan också ansvar"

The idea of blocking an editor one finds abrasive in order to give him/her "time to cool down" or an "opportunity" for introspection or whatever (a notion also mooted in the recent User:Giano debacle) seems to me to be mere Newspeak, and just about equally patronizing as planting officious warning templates on established users. Did anybody ever improve in civility, let alone introspection, by being talked down to in this way? [37]

Thank you for writing this. *fanboys you* Haukur 09:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

/me blushes, then basks.

Bishonen | talk 09:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

I think tha admin in question poor nobody in particular was a little inexperienced and probably in need of some coaching, but I have forgiven her in true christian spirit, she was probably just badly advised. Giano | talk 16:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say Thank you! for trying to get people to understand the difference between criticism and incivility. It astounds me how many editors are willing to shout "trolling!" or "personal attack" whenever they read something they don't like. I thought all adults could tell the difference, but perhaps not. Anyway, I see little hope of the culture changing here, but thanks for trying to get people to see the light. Friday (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Friday, you thought correctly. All adults can. Askolnick 14:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Friday, yes, it's very worrying, a real danger IMO. :-( You should get Geogre on the subject — one of the few wikiculture aspects where he and I think exactly alike. Bishonen | talk 16:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

Question

Forgiva me, I notta spika too gooda inglise, but I was just been reading an Evylyn Waugh, modern review and read that Mr Samgrass is an anorak. Have you any idea what an anorack is? (yes, I know it is a horrible cheap nylon coat, but apparently it is idiomatically something else - what? Giano | talk 17:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Response by changing the spelling and blueing the link. You may now click on it. The explanation is at the end of the article. Bishonen | talk 17:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC).

Oh how very clever you are, I'd never have thought of that, he was a nasty old toady wasn't he? Giano | talk 18:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know there were train spotters back in Evelyn Waugh's days. up+l+and 18:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I rather think it just meant he was boring dull and very tiresome. Sebastian and Charles certainly though so, I recall Giano | talk 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The OED defines this in its additions from 1997:

2. slang (derog.). A boring, studious, or socially inept young person (caricatured as typically wearing an anorak), esp. one who pursues an unfashionable and solitary interest with obsessive dedication. Also attrib."

But the oldest attestation it provides is from the Observer 1984: "At weekends boatloads of Dutch 'anoraks' — pirate radio fans — come out to cheer on their latest hero." (The OED has no example specifically mentioning train spotters, but they would seem to fit right in.) Waugh's use would then be several decades earlier. I wonder if it would be original research to add it to the article? up+l+and 08:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably best not Tuppy, avoid controversy has always been my wiki-motto Giano | talk 08:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Er. I took Giano to be saying above that he saw the word in a modern review? Not in the novel. I'm also having a hard time imagining that the OED would have missed such an early first use, and by Evelyn Waugh yet. Bishonen | talk 10:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC).

The same review also refers to Lady Bracknell as "a busy old bezum" I wonder what exactly a bezum is? Giano | talk 11:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Snort. I take it the old attention span is better suited for reviews than novels? Bishonen | talk 11:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC).

Personal attack! Personal attack! (Now, where do we have the correct scary template to use?) I guess I misread Giano's Sicilian accent. On the other hand, I have pushed OED's 1923 first attestation for "diploma mill" back 42 years, to an article in the The Brooklyn Daily Eagle from 1881. (Not that anyone will ever notice, as that article will probably never be finished.) But Waugh is perhaps less likely to have been overlooked by the OEDitors than an article in a minor paper in one of the former colonies. up+l+and 11:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you do me a favour

Hi Bishonen, could you do me a small admin favour please? I once had a user subpage, User:LukasPietsch/GreekPhonology. I had it deleted at some point by my own request but stupidly forgot to keep a copy offline. Now someone told me they would like to see it. Could you please undelete it for me? Thanks! Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As Bishonen's latest stalker talk-page watcher, I noticed this request and undeleted. Perhaps this lacks that personal touch, but at least your page is back. Friday (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! That was quick! Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh. Page has become self-administering. Cool. :-) Bishonen | talk 21:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC).

Research

I've just been researching this [38] I wonder how much longer we all have to keep accepting these decisions before something is done about it. Giano | talk 16:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Giano, I don't know where the conversation was when you referenced it, but at the moment it looks like it's reaching a sensible conclusion? No-one is stopping anyone else from enforcing the arbcom ruling, and no-one is rushing to enforce it. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me it was an ill thought out solution in the first place. Giano | talk 07:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone adding to the discussion seems to agree with that. I'm not aware of the user's history, so I'm leaving it alone. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Topic for discussion

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Proposed_decision ... Read the proposal and comments on proposed principle no. 3 and discuss quietly among yourselves. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The ol' subtlety

Long time and all...

I'm trying to work on expanding subtlety again by using the links suggested by an anon user some time ago. I could use some etymology information. Could you check the OED entry and paste it in at talk:subtlety? I know you handed it to me, like, ages ago on IRC, but I naturally forgot to write it down.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sho hun. Bishonen | talk 12:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC).

Much oblige, dear.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP vandalism

Hi -- thought I'd let you know that an anon vandalized CSICOP; looks to me as if a checkuser to see if this is Davkal would be warranted. I'm at work and can't wend my way through the policies to figure out whether and how to post the request, but I'll do that this evening if you don't have time to look at it. If it is indeed Davkal, I think his block needs to go up to a month; after the Leonovski incident he can no longer plead ignorance of sockpuppet policy. Mike Christie (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Although there are some similarities (such as use of obscenities in vandalizing articles on skeptics), I don't think this is Davkal. However, he needs some serious blocking - his talk page is littered with warning notices and at least one block for his ongoing vandalism attacks [39]. Askolnick 15:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've filed the request—learn a new trick every day, that's my motto. :-) Serious blocking of anons is difficult, but I asked CheckUser to also tell me if this one is reasonably stable (as the pattern of vandalism suggests). Bishonen | talk 16:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC).

Looks like you were right, Askolnick. The IP is blockable all right, but registered to the New York State Dept of Transportation. Wrong part of the world for a Gary Glitter fan. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC).

Hey man, I know my kooks, cranks, and cornballs. :-\ Good detectiving, Bishonen. Time to erect a permanent roadblock on that Dept. of Transport. IP address. Meanwhile, I've got my eye on another Vandal at the gates; this one just wiped out a bunch of criticism from the Deepak Chopra article. Not the same Vandal, I'm sure, but clearly from the Woo-woo tribe.Askolnick 17:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Erich Heller article which you moved from mainspace to userspace in May/06

Hello Bishonen - On May 19, after discussing the matter with User:Charles_Matthews, you moved the article on Erich Heller to User:Prof02/Erich Heller so that User:Prof02 could work on the article with minimal intervention by other editors. At the time, Charles Matthews called the move a "short term solution" and proposed returning to this "in the not-too-distant future." Time has slipped by, and Wikipedia has now been without an article on Erich Heller for 4 months. Meanwhile Prof02 has produced a still rough but very long (161 kb) draft in his userspace, written in the florid, editorializing manner which you and Charles tried to discourage. I dropped him what I thought was a civil note, suggesting that he should release the article back into public user space, but he says he has no "deadline" and may even choose to delete the whole thing in the end. I'm not sure that he appreciates that he is not simply writing from scratch but was entrusted with an article that was already in the main encyclopedia. Perhaps it is time for you to consider reinstating the May 19/2006 version of the Erich Heller article in the public pages. You could even protect the public Erich Heller article, if you think Prof02 is really going to come up with something usable. But until he does, Wikipedia users should find something (even if only the May 19/2006 locked-down version) when they search on "Erich Heller." - WikiPedant 05:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, WikiPedant, especially since we seem to be still waiting for the user's promised mellowing-out (hello there, Uppland). And especially since the latest comment from the professor is that he may need another four years (!). I'll see if I can figger how to move the pre-prof version complete with its history into article space. Then the user can go on editorializing in his userspace ad infinitum, at least as far as I'm concerned; I don't see what harm it does. (I don't see what use it is, either, but perhaps it's time to stop expecting it). Bishonen | talk 16:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

I think it's

1. delete the page,
2. restore the older versions
3. move the page into article space (this leaves behind the deleted newer versions I beilieve)
4. restore all the deleted newer versions at User:Prof02/Erich Heller
5. revert to the pre-redirect ver

All theoretical knowledge, of course: whenever I actually try anything like this I end up with a heart attack. Probably best to beg someone good with the buttons to do it; only downside is that Prof2 might then accost them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds right, Bunch, but I worry about getting tripped up by some unexpected busybody feature in the software--especially that 4) would actually jump the restored versions to the new name--to article space. Wouldn't surprise me at all. I dare only do these things if I take no forethought at all, and it's too late for that. Anyway, the "poor little me" approach usually wins the day. :-) Bishonen | talk 17:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

I guess somebody else could start an Erich Heller article from scratch if they wish to, but there is no pre-Prof version of the current article, as he started it back in March. Perhaps Prof02 should publish his article in print somewhere before releasing it on Wikipedia. It was almost 40 A4 pages long last I checked print preview. up+l+and 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

User:AmiDaniel has now split the History and recreated the May 11 Erich Heller page in article space (last edit by Charles Matthews) on my request. No, I've remembered there's no pre-Prof version of the article, Tups, but, well, he did release it under the GFDL. I also don't see why he would object to this procedure (though he has surprised me before). If he even notices. It doesn't exactly affect him. The version he's working on is pretty different by now. Bishonen | talk 04:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC).

Bio infoboxes

Hi, I remeber that you were opposed to bio infoboxes, I was wondering if you'd care to chime in on the irrelevance of this monster. Thanks. --Peta 06:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Breaking

P.S. I'm sorry you've gone on wikibreak, Tups. :-( I won't post on your page, then, but are you aware that you don't have a valid wiki e-mail address? Bishonen | talk 11:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC).

I do now. Good luck with your conflagration. I hope Giano will help you rebuild the poor city again. up+l+and 12:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. You have mail. I hope you won't be long gone. Bishonen | talk 12:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC).

User_talk:Haukurth#Talk:Viking

Oh, I am a naughty vandal... Good thing there are people with standardized warning templates to set me straight ;) Haukur 09:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh noes you bad fanboy! Now don't go removing the template or you'll get blocked! (Sorry, if I wasn't just leaving for work I'd look out a template that says that.) Bishonen | talk 09:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

PING=

.... ? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Phew. I was worried. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaving for awhile, in protest

Hi Bish, Giano's gone and I've decided to leave for awhile in protest. If you have any thoughts please share them on my talk page. Thanks Paul August ☎ 17:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried -- notice ALoan's ping up there? -- that Bishonen may have beat you to leaving (I hope not permanently). Things are going so well. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sock-oh-rama (again)

Do you think we should do another CheckUser or is it so obvious that we don't need to bother? --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I do often why people get blocked, create a new account and then immediately go right back to their old "haunts". It's astonishingly arrogant if you think about it. Like somehow we're all going to miss the signs. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Teh wolfster used to be much more obvious--every new incarnation would attack bishonen, lol! And I've seen her remark on Wikipedia Review that she doesn't really care if she keeps getting blocked, since it's so easy to create new socks. It may not be obvious enough, as it's more about "feelings" than concrete stuff. I can do the CU this time--let's split the borework. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

Pretty certain that User:JackieSpratt was Maggie too...or a friend of Maggie's. I blocked that one without a warning. About as abusive as you can get. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't really think he would go away - or return with better Wiki manners?

Bishonen, sorry to trouble you again. But Davkal is back and edit warring again. Despite the overwhelming consensus reached among editors on the CSICOP talk page, Davkal's resumed reverting changes and writing in his POV. Askolnick 15:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is so sad. Those we want to keep are being driven off; those we'd love to get rid of keep coming back. :( KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha! You've hit on something! What we need to do is to invent some sort of paranormal device that will instantaneously switch the brains between both types of editors. Killer, you're a genius! Askolnick 19:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We should simply figure out the exact birth times of all the bad editors and pass a policy banning anyone and everyone sharing their astrological traits. That works, right? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd check with Theo7, but we banned him. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes, my astro sign is Orion. What's yours? Askolnick 05:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to appear as Davkal's everlasting nemesis. I posted on ANI asking for somoeone to take over. Bishonen | talk 20:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, I can understand this decision, but what I don't understand is why you would then stack the deck in his favor. Why did you delete one of Davkal's most vile personal attacks from his talk page, where he called you a "meatpuppet" and a "prickess," and made a sexual innuendo against you? You explained, " Since another admin will be turning up at this page, I'm doing you the favor of removing the most egregious of your insults." What did he do to deserve such a favor? Did he EVER apologize for those vile attacks - or even admit that they are wrong? Shouldn't he be held accountable for his conduct? Askolnick 13:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

ADHD

Hi Bish, guess what? ADHD is now listed as a GA. Which couldn't have happened without your help.

I owe you one, and I'd like to repay the favor sometime. If there is anything you would like for me to research for you (I attend the University of South Carolina, which has one of the best libraries in the US), I'll be happy to do so. --*Kat* 21:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, cool, Kat! I'm delighted to hear about the article, it was a pleasure. But I'll bear your kind offer in mind for sure. In fact I think there was something, for an article I'm writing... can't remember what it was, but it'll come to me. Best, Bishonen | talk 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

That was probably the bit I was supposed to be researching, and as I am not where I can access an excellent, or a good, or even a decent, library it would be wonderful if Kat could take a look... if it was that, I'll post details, if not, then please ignore this post from the semi-useless puppy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it wasn't that--I was more or less going to refer to snopes.com, both for the fire ending the plague and for there being only a handful of deaths. Neither I nor my sources believe a word of it. But if you find sources that say different, at some point, Killer, that would be great. Bishonen | talk 00:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

You know I just so happen to have a book on Charles II out from the library right now. It has a little bit of information about September 4th that you might find interesting. I can add this information to Fire's talk page or incorporate it straight into the article. Which would you prefer? (PS, this doesn't count because you didn't ask me to look it up)--*Kat* 07:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just put it in the article (if it fits in), please! Bishonen | talk 17:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

Gwen Stefani fan turned Nelly Furtado fan or...?

Yesterday, I made a number of edits to Nelly Furtado-related articles. Hours later, EE/Velten (talk · contribs) decided to do the same (including this sneaky revert of one of my edits with his IP address, which I've blocked for 24 hours). I understand that you're reluctant to become too involved in this situation, so I'm mainly asking for advice here: given that "stalking" was one of the principles in EE's RFAr case, and that you blocked EE for making "piddling" edits to the then-FA of the day Simon Byrne with the intention of annoying Giano, would it be out of line for me to place a 24 hour block on the Velten username? I was tempted to do it straight away, but I felt I needed your outside opinion because you seem to know more about dealing with issues like this (and I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt too often :/). Extraordinary Machine 16:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you do, EM. When will you learn, eh? There is a ruling that she's limited to a single account; and after a lot of kicking and screaming and "declining" the ruling--I'm glad the ArbCom got to see that exhibition with their own eyes--she finally (apparently) accepted it. And right away she's editing anonymously? Again? If she had made some sort of immediate excuse, said she'd done it by mistake or something, that would have been different. I'm writing a request for clarification right now, asking what the appropriate penalties are for violating the ruling. (If there aren't any, then helloo, meaningful ruling!) So let me get this clear: you're saying that, quite apart from the IP issue, now that she has been warned off making piddling annoyance edits to articles authored by Giano, Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes, she switched to doing them to you instead? Is that it? If so my advice is: block Velten for 24 hours for annoyance edits, plus 24 for spitting in the face of the ruling. 48 hours. I can do it if you'd rather not, I don't mind being involved to that extent. Don't wait for the reply to my request for clarification--you remember how long it took for ArbCom to even cast enough votes to activate the ruling? (We might still be waiting if I hadn't been running around reminding them.) Bishonen | talk 17:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

When I grow up and have a less rose-tinted look on the world :). Hmm, I'd like to think of myself as good natured, but I guess adminship images requires more "firmness" in the face of disruptive users. Okay, I've blocked her for 48 hours, and I might comment on the request for clarification (just to help stress the urgency and importance of the matter, if nothing else). On an unrelated note, I'm thinking of listing a pop music article at peer review in the (somewhat) near future. I was wondering if I could ask you to take a look at it for me then? I know you said you weren't interested in the pop music articles, but I want to make sure the article could be understandable to someone who doesn't know much about pop music. If you're not interested then I won't mind; it's just you have more experience in writing good articles (particularly FAs) than I do. Extraordinary Machine 18:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If Bishonen is too harried, you can call on me, too. I'll be nice. Promise! Really! (I was only ever mean because I was sick of EE dragging the same dadblamed single up for FA every 10 hours.) Geogre 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Geogre has the added advantage of not being tone deaf and ignorant. Bishonen | talk 02:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

Oh, I'm completely tone deaf. That's why I was in a punk rock band. However, Kelly Martin says I'm a diva, so maybe I qualify after all. :-) Geogre 01:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A punk rock diva? Is this a first? Hey, being a diva isn't always a bad thing, although it definitely can be sometimes. For example, if either of you were to see me relisting the same article at FAC over and over, promise that you would block me, mmkay? Anyway, thanks for the offer. Extraordinary Machine 18:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no one blocked him for that. If, however, you start up three or four accounts and begin talking to yourself and voting for your own articles, I make no promises. I think, for punk rock divas, real ones, there were a few. Hazel O'Connor was a spectacular British version, and Maria McKee was for the post-punk set, and there is always Siouxsie Sioux as well as Chrissie Hynde. <Me goes off, dreaming of Chrissie Hynde.> Geogre 21:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

thewolfstar's user page

Shouldn't we put the sockpuppeteer template on thewolfstar's userpage? I would do it myself, but it's protected. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Bishonen | talk 02:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

Thanks. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 02:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP article and Davkal

Due to the nature of this editor's edits on the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal article, and the fact that the IP is registered to AOL/UK (where Davkal lives), I believe it to be a sockpuppet of Davkal. At the least, I think it would be good to semi-protect the CSICOP page. Also, Davkal's been making personal attacks again. I know you don't want to act as his personal nemesis, so I reported this at WP:AN/I. KarlBunker 22:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a sock-puppet nor a meat-puppet nor any other kind of puppet. It is, presumably, someone else who agrees with my views. As for the peronal attacks, KB's edit summary on a recent revert of one of my edits was "Go away kid, you bother me". This is typical of the total lack of civility with which I am treated. I also think the points I make, resulting in KB's allegations of personal attacks, are warranted since he is claiming not to understand what the phrase "state of play" means in order to disrupt the talk page on telepathy, and is treating me in a condescending manner by suggesting that I am one of only three people in the universe who understands that term.Davkal 22:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Davkal, I see you have twice reverted my improvement of a particular sentence. I'm coming round to the opinion that you simply don't care whether the text is encyclopedic or not. Please edit for quality, not for POV. I won't block the anon, not because it's behaving acceptably—it's not—but because blocking AOL is bad. I've semiprotected the article. Bishonen | talk 23:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

I've reverted your edit because as the sentence in question is a characterisation of the views expressed in a cited article my version is better - the particluar words used were chosen for that specific reason. It also seems that in your opinion any editor who agrees with my edits is acting unacceptably - the logic of this escapes me.Davkal 23:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If RFA is broken, Then do as you please?

I know you're not much into the "cooking up policy" theorizing, Bishonen, but your talk page has pretty good traffic, so I hope you don't mind if I piggyback a bit. I explain the situation on the page, but, essentially, I have faith that the people who could write a million articles are clever enough to have some alternative to RFA other than having the beaurocrats do exactly as they wish without regard to the community's voice. The contest I'm having is at User:Geogre/RFA-Derby. Let's get those creative minds working, as the less creative solution is intolerable. As William Pitt the Younger said, "Exigency is the creed of every tyrant, it is the justification of every despot." Geogre 02:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but make your own page fun fun fun and you'll get good traffic too! [she remarked with unjustified pride, as she's had precious little to do with it—the funninators are actually all the weirdos who camp on it. Hello, my lovelies, you didn't hear that, did you?] Bishonen | talk 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

Look, I think this edit indicates I've lost it. Weirdos indeed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[/me rolls her eyes surreptitiously] No, no, dear, I'm sure that got you lots of... uh... customers. Bishonen | talk 03:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

Must have, DVD R W fixed a typo :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The berries are very nice, but I'll take the gin. Geogre 12:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wolfie

User:Rule by Secrecy. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

195.93.21.38 - again!

This Davkal-look alike is determined to disrupt as much as he can before he's stopped. You protected the CSICOP page from his edit warring. So he took moved the war to the Natasha Demkina article, where he's already violated WP:3RR Askolnick 05:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I need an administrator's help!

Bishonen, I need your help or any other administrator's. I put up a complaint on AN/I yesterday, but thanks to a little intervention by my friend InShaneee, no administrator has responded. I am being harrassed to death by THB, who has launched a campaign to drive me out of Wikipedia, and may do just that because I can't seem to get anyone to stop him. He started spamming personal attacks against me and another editor. He followed that with a virtually non-stop edit war, violating WP:3RR with 5 edits to Natasha Demkina, and if you go to his contribution page, you will see that he has been going around to nearly every article I've worked on to cause disruption. Those efforts include falsely placing the Wiki copyright violation template on the Skeptic's Dictionary without explaining what he thinks is a copyright violation (everything there is fair use). Askolnick 16:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's it. I quit.Askolnick 17:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry to see you gone, ask. :-( I hope you change your mind, you're a valuable contributor. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

An award!

For your tireless eradication efforts on Wikipedia, I hearby award you, Bishonen, with the Wolf-Catcher Award! Thanks! Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Charles II

Hey Bishonen, what do you think of this picture of the Merry Monarch?

Charles II.

--*Kat* 05:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's very nice, Kat, but I'm fond of the expressive, "modern"-looking portrait that was there already—it's more of a portrait of a human being. Also, there's not a lot in that article for him to be merry about! Best, Bishonen | talk 12:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

wolfstar anon

You wanna deal with this? 210.204.198.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And another one User:Andromeda466. Whack a mole, indeed! Donnacha 10:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

please remove block

Bishonen, here is an interesting piece of Wiki policy:

"Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute."

Given that we are currently engaged in such a dispute, ie., it is my edits of your edits that you are complaining about (they are the only ones I have made in the last few days so it can't be anything else), it is clear that you are breaching a policy and that such behaviour is "striclty prohibited". I would therefore be grateful if you could remove my page ban from the CSICOP page immediately.Davkal 13:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not involved in this dispute. I endorse this ban. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes, have you even bothered to read the edits I have made? They have all been agreed virtually intact by the other main eitors of the page.Davkal 14:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen them. I would go ahead and fix what are left of your tendentious, POV, and non-grammatical edits, but no doubt you would then state that I was involved in the content dispute as well, and on down the line of administrators ad infinitum. The absense of people stepping up to the plate in the last few hours or days to edit-war with you is much more a reflection of their understanding that Wikipedia regards edit warring as a gravely bad thing, than any indication of consensus that your edits are beneficial. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, here's an interesting instruction prominently posted at the top of my page: Please post at the foot of the page! And here's a suggestion: when your conduct is criticized, reflect on your conduct, don't march off to the nearest policy page looking for something you can take out of context and out of the spirit of the policy to ruleslawyer with. And here's some information: I'm not in a content dispute with you. I'm not a regular editor of the CSICOP page, I merely fixed up a few style issues in passing, in a neutral way. It never even occurred to me that anybody would object. I suppose that shows I haven't yet plumbed the depths of your keenness to push your POV, and never mind about article quality: if a word like "arrogant" about the side you don't like goes, with explanation, you must of course restore it, without explanation. My mistake. And here's the whole irrelevance of your post on my page: as I explained in my original message, you are still able to edit, in other words I haven't blocked you. I've banned you. Bishonen | talk 14:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

Yes, and your ban is in bad faith since there has simply been no edit-warring taking place in the last few days. There have been very small edits to a number of sections by myself and then these have been added to, but certainly not reverted, by two of the other main contributers to the page. The only person who has actually reverted any of my changes was you - without any discussion on the talk page, and without any knowledge of the article that the passsage in question was characterising in the lines you amended. Davkal 14:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Here we see one of the page's main contributers fixing the broken grammar your recent kneejerk reverting insisted on leaving in the article. I suggest you stop harrassing Bishonen here, now. If you are truly clueless enough to think Bishonen's article ban here is in bad faith, you are free to pursue normal dispute resulution mechanisms. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you (Bunchofgrapes) go to the CSICOP homepage and see what it says there. I then suggest you go the CSICOP discussion page in WIKI and see my reasons for using the perfectly grammatical wording I chose. I also suggest you go to the CSICOP article page now to see that editor who changed my wording's contribution is still there. I then suggest you explain how a change by me from "avoid" to "not to" and then a correction of my own edit from "not to" to "do not" to reflect what the CSICOP website actually says, and then a change from KB from "do not" back to to "not to" is a knee-jerk revert ratrher than merely being some tinkering around the edges to try to make the article better. I suspect you thought that my original change from "not to" to "do not" was a revert - it wasn't, it was a CORRECTION of my own edit to "not to" when I realised that the website actually said "Does not". But then you would know all that if you had actually looked at the edits. Davkal 14:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes, I have a suggestion for you, too. Would you care to review these links[40][41][42][43] and decide whether to take some action against the charming taunts? (Note that Davkal perfectly understood what my problem was with his "lyrics"—I didn't tell him—which is good confirmation in my book.) Bishonen | talk 17:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

I just now saw this. I saw the "goodbye" song posting already, and it is obvious what it means and obvious that Davkal is lying below. However, I won't block for that. Askolnick, I believe I recall, was a believer that grownups can handle personal attacks by children like Davkal without resorting to beatings, and I shall respect that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes - you call me a child. I think you are the child. You made a mistake but can't admit it. There was no edit war. You mistook my own earlier edits and corrections for revertions and edit warring between editors. I made the change to "not to" and then to "do not" - not Hob Gadling as I think you suppose - I am surely not edit-warring with myself. KB then changed it back to "not to" (he probably made the same mistake as you and thought he would spite me by reverting to another editor's words rather than to my earlier version which is still the version in the article). Now why don't all the adults in the room go back to the CSICOP article and see that what I am saying is true. Then like adults, the ban can be lifted and like children, we can all live happily ever after.Davkal 11:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen wrote: "I see you congratulate yourself on having driven off a valuable editor, how nice" just below my favourite lyrics. It does not take a genius to work out what she is (wrongly) referring to so to suggest that I have admittted that these lyrics are about askolnick on account of my working this out is nonsense. The lyrics were actually a goodbye to all at Wiki from me since I was fed up of the constant abuse and harrassment I have suffered at the hands of asolnick, bishonen and others. The last straw being the now constant reverting of almost any change I make just for the sake of it, and the "protection" of the CSICOP page from editing by anyone who edits in line with my views and arguments. Since the supposed consensus was attained in my absence, the ridiculously POV version that was adopted has been reverted or altered three times by two seperate editors in as many days. Undeterred, Bishonen has simply blocked the editrors or protected the page so that only I am allowed to edit from my view and so of course it will look like I am breaking consensus. The only problem being, there never was a consensus - there was just three editors with biased views trying to get their POV in by hook, but mostly by crook. The fact that there version lasted about 15 minutes before someone quite unconnected recognised it for what it was and changed it is all the evidence you need to see that others find the article POV as well.Davkal 17:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• This user is a time sink. He sucked all the light out of the room to get Askolnik to leave, and I see the same thing happening here. Geogre 19:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look at askolnick's reasons for leaving he was blaming another editor at the time - THB. The fiftieth editor, or something, that he had become embroiled in a war with. All my fault of course.Davkal 11:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And so now, with me conviently blocked from editing the CSICOP page, Karl Bunker can go back and revert all the stuff that was agreed through mediation. So much for consensus. Well done.Davkal 12:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, I'm all tired of you. Here's a choice for you: either you stop stinking up this page with your miserable sour self-righteousness, or I ask some uninvolved admin to review your attacks on me. Would you like that? No? Oh, you're thinking it might get you a hefty Personal Attack block? I see. Then you'd better go away, hadn't you? Right now. Bishonen | talk 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

I already have a block on a page I've been working on for some time and now all the hard work is being undone by your ban for an non-existent edit war.Davkal 13:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You picked the wrong alternative. Bishonen | talk 13:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

Henry James

Hi BoG up there, excuse me butting in: What d'you know about him, have yoiu read any biogs? Giano 14:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I know it's a mess, but...

You should see the last on my talk page: There is an RFAR where I am an involved party regarding the Giano/Carnildo mess. As someone more conversant with diffing and careful than I, you may wish to take a look. I know there are too many demands on our time already. (Oh, and for Giano: A philosophy prof from Iowa told me he told his class, "You know, William James had an even more famous brother. Anyone know who it was?" A student shot up his hand and answered, "Jesse?.) Geogre 18:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Conversant is right. I've already commented. Bishonen | talk 18:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

Following our discussion on the RFAR page, and on consideration, I've added you to the involved parties of the case. --InkSplotch 20:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

It's Alright

It's alright; I didn't know he was banned. Clay4president 01:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I know. One fourth or so of all noobs these days seem to be Thewolfstar socks. :-( Bishonen | talk 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

A possible you-know-who

Worth a watch - User:AnarchistFactFinder. Donnacha 17:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MacGyverMagic - Mgm|^(talk) 22:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't get it. Is this in place of the other one, in addition to the other one? All I see currently is Tony telling us that there is a mass of evidence, but it's privately communicated to the ArbCom and Jimbo. That makes no sense and somewhat illustrates the very problem. If evidence isn't on the evidence page, it's not supposed to be evidence at all. Geogre 00:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the same case. Up until now, technically, it was only a proposed case. Once 4 arbitrators vote to take the case, it gets officially "opened" and gets its own pages. The prior comments remain in the record but more detailed evidence, arguments, etc. can now be offered by those feeling inclined. Newyorkbrad 01:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is also widely believed of many that the Arbitrators don't spend much time looking at those statements once the case is open, and sometimes (but not always) the Workshop page gets short shrift too. The most important thing -- the page the Arbitrators are required to look at with careful scrutiny -- is the evidence page. (Oh, and Bishonen, "ping"...) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It does appear on the Workshop page that Tony has been sacked/suspended by the ArbCom - no reply yet about for how long or why. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the arbers I've seen have waxed wroth with him, indeed. Were he the issue, there would be a conclusion of it. I'm afraid that he is not the issue, to my mind, but rather a symptom of it. The fact that folks are having to infer what has been implied is, by itself, another symptom of the "our house is ours, and the windows are blacked out." I do not expect or desire public humiliation, but I do expect openness. Either there was no grounds for dismissal (no RfAR) or no need for secrecy. I gather from the "I wrote you privately" on the evidence page that there was some form of resignation. If there were, that is private and not appropriate for an evidence page. If there wasn't, then ... Well, my point is that it's either evidentiary (and therefore open) or not (and therefore not to be mentioned as evidence), but mentioning it is yet more of an insistence that there is a back slapping back channel, and that's no way helpful. Geogre 16:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

William Shakespeare

If you're going to protect articles like the one above from casually anonymous WikiGnomes like me, then at least place a notice so I don't get an indignant surprise when I see 'view source' at the top of the page. --84.64.51.100 01:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to leave it so long. Bishonen | talk 01:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC).

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my talkpage. I'm disappointed Petri (who usually seems a reasonable fellow) did not look at the edit summary and context of my edit before dumping a template there. I took out some of my annoyment the other night on the List of interracial couples, which I found a while ago (it is remarkable how these things can stay around sometimes), finally nominating it for deletion. up+l+and 05:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure, Tups. Good grief, that list is nearly as silly as my pride and joy, and I suppose not even on purpose. Bishonen | talk 06:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC).

Too butch

"18th Dined at the Leg in King Street, where Captain Ferrers, my Lord's Cornet, comes to us, who after dinner took me and Creed to the Cockpitt play, the first that I have had time to see since my coming from sea, "The Loyall Subject," where one Kinaston, a boy, acted the Duke's sister, but made the loveliest lady that ever I saw in my life, only her voice not very good. After the play done, we three went to drink, and by Captain Ferrers' means, Kinaston and another that acted Archas, the General, came and drank with us. Hence home by coach, and after being trimmed, leaving my wife to look after her little bitch, whcih was just now a-whelping, I to bed." -- Samuel Pepys, August 18, 1660.

It's the first acting reference I've hit. My edition stinks, as it's abridged far too much and edited for content. "There the dog [dirtied] the boat, which made the king laugh." Yeah, right. The most Sam does in this edition is kiss girls. Geogre 16:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.pepysdiary.com/ ? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really, ALoan, but I appreciate the link for its summaries of events alluded to. I caught most of them myself, but it's not a full text. Geogre 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - its annotations can be quite helpful. I had not appreciated that it is not a full text yet. It seems that the entries are being added at a day a time, so presumably it will be a full (and fully annotated) text eventually, if the person running the site sticks with it. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I noticed. It's just that the person has started from 1663, it seems. I will probably have to invest in a full text. When I got the one I got, I was relying on Amazon's entirely unhelpful descriptions. Little did I know that this one was going to be edited with a foreward by Robert Louis Stevenson, who has to make excuses for Pepys's love of women and nasty language. Geogre 01:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Bleeps

Geogre, the Bell & Hyman Pepys from the 1970s is the first reliable text. Only editions based on it are capable of being good editions. No web versions are based on it that I know of (because it's copyright, of course). See the references section at Restoration spectacular:

• Pepys, Samuel (ed. Robert Latham and William Matthews, 1995). The Diary of Samuel Pepys. 11 volumes. London: Harper Collins. First published between 1970 and 1983, by Bell & Hyman, London. The shorthand in which Pepy's diaries were originally written was not accurately transcribed until this standard, and copyright, edition. All web versions of the diaries are based on public domain 19th-century editions, which unfortunately contain many errors. Bishonen | talk 01:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

Thanks. I'll see what that's going for, used. You should check out Edward Kynaston, as someone has helpfully added "citation needed" for every quote from Cibber. People. Geogre 01:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have this crazy guess that maybe, just maybe, the quotes are from Cibber's Apology. Call me reckless. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ping again, Grapes, sorry, I missed your reply. Bishonen | talk 01:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

You have mail

It's unbelievable. These people are the techie supremes but don't know what a cloak can do. Morons. Geogre 18:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Gifts

(I'm not sure where you're editing right now, but here's the goodies.)

• 
  Sunday!
  Sunday!
  Sunday!
  Monster Truck Rally!
• 
  Fiery Days and Mondays always get me down.
• 
  Make your own Tuesday joke
• 
  Just in case we still want this

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you have nothing better to do BoG than doodle plans of the London underground system? Go and run the encyclopedia or something, everyone else seems tied up at the moment wathching the circus, so it's a good opportunity Giano 18:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Now I have nothing better to do then to have come back home to wait upon the dryer repairman, again. Ping, if you're there Bish. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Beware the anechoic tiles. Gnip. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There are times ALoan when you are so obscure, that you loose me completely. What pray is an anechoic tile to do with poor BoG and his tumble dryer (yes I have clicked the link - have you?). Do you know anything about kitchen appliences at all? Just out of interest, and this is a very interesting domestic tip for the benefeit of all Wikipedians, if you have to buy a new cuttlery thingy for a Miele dishwasher it costs £55 from John Lewis, but if you go to your local tip, they have them behind the skips and let you take them out for nothing (well you have to give them a fiver) take it home, soak in domestos (you don't know who the previous owner was) and hey presto you have saved £50 - Clever nicht wahr? Giano 20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

ALoan was making a funny about "ping" -- a sonar pulse, see The Hunt for Red October perhaps -- not about clothes dryers, Giano -- and clothes dryers aren't kitchen appliances, you know. Whatever would you do without me. As for your domestic tip, I don't know what a "local tip" is, nor "the skips", or "domestos", so I'm afraid I'm going to have a hard time following up on it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

(Ping...sonar...anechoic tiles...try to keep up...)

Dishwasher? I have a tap (two, actually: one hot, one cold) and a sink. And elbow grease.

The range of products available at the local tip, for a modest fee, is simply amazing. A few pounds in the right hands, and you can furnish virtually an entire house. (Incidentally, if you think Domestos does the business, you should try Milton...) -- ALoan (Talk) 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Giacomo, kindly do not force me to imagine the type of domestic scene that would break a Miele cutlery thing. Was your mother-in-law's toilet paper holder involved at all? Bishonen | talk 22:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

Well I have done the whole of Palazzo Splendido, including the cuddly toys!!! No I prefer domestos ALoan, allthough (I'm told) Milton is good for dentures (you can get those at the local tip too - I'm sure Tony Blair's old ones are currently there now). These American have no idea what they are missing. Giano 07:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dishwasher? I have a dishwasher. Two, in fact. I call them Left and Right. They're the Hand brothers. (And the cutlery thing can be broken quite easily if you do any Sicilian "washing up." You'd be surprised. In New Jersey, they outlawed garbage disposals because of the things people were putting in them. Geogre 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I can think of a very good use for a garbage disposal at the moment! Giano 07:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no: the Hands -- I assume of course that you mean Learned and Augustus -- were cousins, not brothers. Newyorkbrad 01:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not put Beans up your nose! I wonder if Phil Bosworth really wants us to "Have A Nice Day" or is merely quoting Learned Hand? "Talk to the Hand" should prompt, "Which one?" as an answer. Geogre 10:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

They did not! Did they? (I watch Garbage disposal, you know... one of my earliest edits was there.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you use it as a food processor - did you know you can cook a salmon in the dishwasher?, I'm not sure quite how as Mrs G got a bit funny when I tried Giano 07:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly cromulent technique: you wrap it in foil. Now try it with the lutefisk. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC).

Of course I knew you could cook salmon in the dishwasher; I've never been brave enough to try though... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No you didn't, your just saying thatm because your frightened I shall take over as the food editor here - I saw your nasty edit to my boiled bunny with olives recipe, trying to plug yourself - very low I thought. Those who email can have my own recipe for Goat (close your ears Cecila) with olives and marsala. Giano 19:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the estimable Judge Learned Hand. Not a member of Tom Denning's Red Hand Gang of course (redlinked for effect, no doubt).

Caustic soda fish?! That sounds worse than surströmming, although silghtly better than casu marzu. Deep fried spider, anyone? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do you give it the full cycle, or just the quick wash and dry? Giano 15:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Extra special tip from the cook at Palazzo Splendido: When cooking a sturgeon in the dishwasher, be sure to check the "netty thing in the bottom" for caviar. Giano 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

KV

Bishonen, I left some comments on the Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#user_KrishnaVindaloo, regarding the current situation with KrishnaVindaloo. Please don't take any of what I said as negative criticism, as that is not my intent {besides, KillerChihuahua would kill me ;) The issues with KV go much deeper than a cursory look might indicate, and if you're going to wade in there, I hope you'll have time to look at the overall body of KV's work to see where the problem lies. Thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just saw this message left by Jim62sch. Agree this situation needs a deeper look. As I understnd it, some editors feel that KV's edits are unreliable. I'm looking into this at the request of an editor that is so frustrated he may stop editing the psuedoscience and science articles. FloNight 11:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

But doesn't it bother you guys to see a thread posted on ANI by an obvious sock? (Aka "wiki-savvy user with seven edits to his name"?) It does me. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, I just got your message -- I forgot to add your page to my watchlist, so I didn't know you'd responded. Sorry. As for the sock, I have no idea who it is -- BTW, he's got a whole 12 now :( -- in fact I didn't even look at the contributions. Have a checkuser run -- please, as I'm just a bit irritated that the person is a sock (and that I stupidly missed that).

That being said, yes, I was nasty to KV because I'd had enough of him at pseudoscience -- I'm sorry, but he's a pompous ass. OK, maybe that's not a great excuse, but it is honest.

Flo brings up the key point though -- his edits are highly questionable, and he tends to twist facts (or fact/quote-mine) to support his position. This too is likely to be considered uncivil, but beneath that is the major philosophical difference betwen myself (and others) and KV. [44] -- i.e., the example you posted on my page. (This of course raises questions as to why I let him push my buttons, but that's an essay).

Anyway, I hope this clarifies things a bit. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. Well, yes, take a good hard look at what I have done here. I turned up originally on the PS article a while back. I noticed a lot of problems there and worked towards problem solving. I've discovered quite a lot of good solutions. The very concept of PS needed clarifying. Especially as it relates to fields. From the majority science view, fields are generally not considered pseudoscientific, or at least, not in explanation. Fields have PS aspects, usually multiple. I worked on many specific PS concepts in many fields in order to clear this up on the PS article. I then worked with others such as Jefffire and FeloniusMonk, to clarify the point on the PS cat. My proposal was always towards enforcing the NPOV policy on pseudoscience, and what science says about it. I basically used clarity and compromise. Rather than fields being identified as PS (and some are), I worked hard to ensure that the specific elements of those fields were identified as PS, rather than the field. The field can be mentioned, but only to say which particular PS concept is used where, and to explain why is is considered pseudoscientific. This overcomes a lot of problems at once. It means that proponents don't get their whole field labeled "a pseudoscience". It reduces the complaint about PS being a pejorative term. It means the reader gets specifics on why a field is considered to have PS aspects. It allows us to look at PS aspects of accepted fields that have moved on. Its a great solution. Some proponents will not like it nevertheless, and of course some proponents will resist NPOV policy in general and they will rant and rave and attack whenever you try to add the PS cat to their vested interest despite other accepted fields being added to the cat. But the fact remains, more specific information has been presented as a result of my encouragement in that direction. I've encouraged civility, and worked flexibly with other editors. Some groups will tend to stalk one through WP though. Anyway, as a pathalogically lying pompous assed mahatma, I may yet have more solutions on the way. KrishnaVindaloo 09:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I give up. I cannot be bothered with battling back and forth with KV over his version of reality. And, since we're name-dropping, you might want to check with Kenosis, Gleng, Steth, Dematt, Jim Butler, and others. Other than that, I'm outta here as far as this issue goes. KV, feel free to continue on your path -- maybe someday shantih and satya will reveal themselves to you. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jim62sch. You'd be battling with NPOV policy so perhaps you are quite sensible to give up. All the names you dropped above have shown a strong tendency for consensus over NPOV policy. So they are pretty unlikely to get along with me, no matter how many times I contact them for civil discussion. There is a problem on the PS article for the same reason, and there is certainly a problem on the chiropractic article. There are groups with biases who stick together and award each other barnstars for committing OR, and who generally try to find authority figures with claimed credentials in publishing etc. I've a few publications myself, but I have no need whatsoever to use authority, or to seek approval from POV pushing groups. NPOV policy does it all for me. Or perhaps I should say, I have adapted to NPOV policy. That is the environment we are working in, that is the reality. If you don't like it, well just go ahead and give up. KrishnaVindaloo 11:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I give up on your smugness and arrogance, dude, not because of NPOV. You have done nothing in terms of adopting an NPOV policy, I doubt you know what neutrality is. Thus, working on any article you're involved in isn't worth the effort. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Said my bit on [45]Gleng 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, all. Jim, I'm sorry I didn't make it clear on ANI about the sockpuppet issue. I thought I had, but I guess I was too roundabout. I've put a question to the user on Talk:Vitalism now. But this isn't something I can request a CheckUser about—no policy basis for it, as no specific puppetmaster is suspected and the sock isn't known to have been abusive. Of course it's intrinsically hard to believe in an innocent sock turning up on such a contentious page... but that's not the kind of argument the CheckUsers will accept. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

Re sock; see [46]Gleng 17:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Blug

user:Geogre/Blug but everyone will disagree & hate it and me. That's fine, as I do, too. Geogre 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't hate you Geogre, I think it is very succinct and accurate. Bishone you have mail, I need something plated and daintily served as they say on place setting as soon as possible, cooked in the dishwasher if you like. Giano 20:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, what's there is just the "how we got to this point" statement. The actual "what's objectionable" is the next bit. Meanwhile, because it is an ill-formed, omnibus RFAR, it's getting "evidence" from everyone who ever walked by and heard a commotion. Geogre 20:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was well-presented and agree with most, though not quite all, of it. Geogre, I did note a couple of minor factual questions on your talk page if you haven't strolled in that direction lately. Newyorkbrad 00:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Why would anybody ever stroll in the direction of their own page? When this one is so much more convenient? Bishonen | talk 00:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

No, Brad's right: I don't like me, so I definitely don't want to talk to me. That's a consensus opinion, too. Maybe some day we'll go back to writing articles about laws, lawyers, "notorious villains" (like Giles Mompesson), criminals (like Jonathan Wild), and acts of vengeance (like strange fires) and hubris (like letting the winds blow you from Sweden over the pole to Canada in a hydrogen balloon). Until then, there's no alternative but talking and hearing myself talk. Blug and blug. Geogre 03:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, I'm as done with Blug as I'm going to get. If you think I'm windy and nebulous, as I no doubt am, I'll entertain any suggestions about what to cut, but I'm as tight as I can get on my own. There is some news, as well, which I've e-mailed you about (Wiki news, not real news). The real news is that the little buggers all have the latest campus plague, and they've succeeded in passing it on to me, so I'm going to have a week or so of mysterious autumn rhinovirus. (One child had actual strep throat.) Geogre 20:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What's strep throat? Giano 20:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's strep throat, of course. (Of course it has a photo illustration! Why would anyone doubt that?) Geogre 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oh that! why didn't you say so in the first place, you Americans are always so evasive, we would just say the kid needs its tonsils out, and take it down to the hospital on "Tonsil day" (making sure it was tonsil day) and have them out - end of story. I think User:Geogre/Blug is actually very good if not quite brilliant, but what are you going to do with it now? I still don't see why tonsylitus is called strep throat - anyhow I can't read the medical pages they always make me feel ill, as I can't help adopting the symptoms, in fact I have the start of a soar throat now........Giano 20:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Did someone mention my unfortunate rhino? No? Oh. Well, watch out Next Week. (hint hint)

Anyway, why is Geogre writing some sort of blog with an odd accent?

And Giano - it is streptococcus in the throat: hence, "strep. throat". I agree - take their tonsils out, and their adenoids, and fit grommets too while you are at it. Nasty diseased buggers. And the students too. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• I had mine out at a very young age, and just look at me, I'm a great believer in operations while young - saves a lot of bother later Giano 21:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I would propose a "get well soon" motion on the RfAr talk page, but I'm not sure I could get a consensus for anything right now. :) Newyorkbrad 21:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I had noticed ALoan hint hint! Congratulations! Giano 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

¡Quelqu'un a traduit le rhinocéros en Français! ¡Je suis si fier! -- ALoan (Talk) 00:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ain't that a kick? Now you need to get Clara built up. (One of my secret sources of pride is thinking I have "most translated articles." I probably don't. I'm sure "Prisoner of Zelda" or something has been translated more. Still, every few days I see good old Jonathan Wild in another language, and it makes me very happy.) We need Clara to go with Durer. Geogre 02:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Bishonen. (I can't believe that my desire not to spend my time collecting diffs to always play "gotcha" with people is now proof that I'm making stuff up, per InkSplotch! In some of those cases, I didn't "prove" it because it was one paragraph up on my blinkin' user talk page! Sheesh. For those who think InkSplotch is neutral, that list ought to be telling.) Geogre 19:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

Yes -- I'm back, busy but back to the routine of daily life. Alaska was wonderful and I needed the break. Thank you for your note. It has been quite some time since I played with that article. I'll look it over. It has been decided that I will finally stand for administrator, although I still have reservations. I suggested we do the "paperwork" during the second week in October. Do you have any advice? I work in such obscure corners that I don't think many editors know my ID. Of course, admins do because of all the lovely blocks. They continue, to my sorrow. Hope your mood improves. Best wishes. WBardwin 08:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought I should let you know that my schedule has changed again. I'll be sent out of state for work during the 2nd week in October. So, I guess we'll try on the 4th week instead. If you are interested in getting involved in the process, User:Dmcdevit has agreed to nominate me. That is, if you two are on speaking terms due to recent events in the tumultuous admin world. Thanks for your interest. WBardwin 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Hogeye's edit warring

Hogeye just created two pov forks of Anarchism (anarchism (social) and anarchism (political)). These are both clearly pov forks and were redirected to the anarchism page, which hogeye has already reverted calling it vandalism (even though I explained why on the talk pages of each). Hogeye knows this is against policy and doesn't really give a damn as evidenced by his message on Talk:Anarchism under the topic "YANDP". This user is seriously wearing down people's patience and is clearly trying to provoke an edit war. As a relatively non-interested party (and an admin) I would appreciate it if you got involved in this. I also just noticed this page as well. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 19:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

For the admins watching this page

Could one of you possibly be a little use for once in a blue moon? I reverted Hogeye's POV fork Anarchism (social) back to Anarchism, see post above, and he reverted me right back, which was his fourth revert of that one article in two hours. Apparently he's under the impression that by saying "rv vandalism" in the edit summary, he magically turns the previous edit into vandalism indeed. He's an experienced editor and experienced, uh, blockee, so he obviously knows about the 3RR. Would somebody like to cast a look and take appropriate action, should any occur to you? (WP:AN3RR just feels like a lot of trouble for such a simple case.) Bishonen | talk 20:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

User:Geni already did it, so the rest of you can stop falling over yourselves. There's a useful little salon... sigh. Thank you, Geni. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

I love the "rv vandalism" edit summary. Did think 4 different experienced editors suddenly became vandals? --FloNight 20:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Known as word magic, Flo. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

Thanks. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 22:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't get the anarchism (disambiguation) page to redirect properly. I got rid of all the text and pressed the redirect button up top and added "Anarchism" to the "insert text" part. When I saved it made it had the curved arrow indicating a redirect and said "Anarchism", but when I actually clicked on a link back to the page, it didn't redirect and displayed the contents of the article. What is up with this? Am I missing something? I've done redirect before (like, an hour or two ago) so what is going on? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 22:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Try forcing a brower cache refresh (shift+reload or ctrl+reload); eventaully made it work for me, though I was seeng the same thing... curious. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, common or garden database FUBAR, I bet everything's fine now. The answer is more zen. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

I don't know what that last part means, but thanks. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 22:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's this web encyclopedia thing, why not try looking it up in that? (Gee.) Bishonen | talk 22:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

Clarification

Hi, Bishonen. Since you linked to a post from me[47] as evidence that there's a general feeling that it would be tactless to criticize Kelly now that she's gone, I feel I should clarify my post. With Kelly gone (but possibly still looking in and reading her messages), I felt it would be in bad taste to turn her talk page into a forum for discussion of her faults. I also have a particular dislike of editors using another editor's talk page in order to carry on an unflattering discussion about that editor. (If you think I'm an awful admin, then say it to me on my talk page, or say it about me on someone else's talk page.) However, I do think it's appropriate that the arbitration case should look into her behaviour, since she is a party in the case. It may surprise you, but I was considering adding my name to those who asked her on her own invitation to give up her admin rights. I was more inclined, however, to ask her to consider that as a second choice if she couldn't agree to stop treating so many users so dismissively.

By the way, you were partly responsible for this (if you read the second half of my last sentence), although I think it would have happened anyway, as I hate being part of a lynch mob. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 00:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Bish

Always remember how beautiful life is.

Hi, Sorry to suggest Tony inflict himself on you. I didn't realise you'd mind. I know he can be a pain in the fundament. He's well on the way to earning himself an externally imposed wiki-vacation, I think. I don't want to see that happen. He's well motivated, except that he's so sure that he knows best that he is becoming what he thinks he's fighting against. This storm will blow itself out, if we face it down. As for dealing with people being shits, Defend Each Other. Have strength, there are people here who care about you. Enjoy the good, and know that the bad shall pass. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Mission accomplished

Venturing east of the Willamette, I scored two varieties: Haribo Piratos, a Swedish Fish-textured affair that assures me it is "7,99% Salmiak! Erwachsensen Lakritz" (I assume "Erwachsensen Lakritz" means "might not kill you"), and Original Rheila Konsul Salmiak Pastillen - Extra Stark und aromatisch im Geschmack (mmm! Stark!). Both German-made unfortunately; no doubt they don't really know how to do it right in Germany. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye

I just blocked him for a week with a final warning. If you disagree or want to change that, let me know. He's just being very disruptive...and happily so. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike, just what I would have done. One can certainly talk about exhausting the community's patience, with that block log. What a lot of good users' time he's wasted. Bishonen | talk 14:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC).

Looks like he was indefinitely blocked a few hours after I blocked him. He got a couple of final warnings and just kept on at it, including calling me an idiot. I think that irked others more than it irked me. :) I've been called worse on here, sad to say. Anyway, just as well. I didn't see him showing any inkling to change. Quite the opposite. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure, who hasn't been called worse? In more pretentious parts of the project and by wikipedians in better standing, yet. It just shows you're doing something right. I got called bastard bitch from hell on #wikipedia-en-admins, the administrators-only IRC channel, the other day. What have you got? ;-P Best, Bishonen | talk 09:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

Ping?

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

please read and comment on

this. Thanks! Nandesuka 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano

I am very disturbed by your implication that more productive editors deserve special treatment ("allowing for the sensitivities and pride of productive editors"). Did you really mean this? --Ideogram 01:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do. Productive editors deserve more care than useless trolls. That is my comparison, exemplifeid by Giano as against Eternal Equinox. Do you see me imply anywhere that, say, Giano and Ghirlandajo deserve more special treatment than other productive editors? No, you don't, and it's not what I mean. "Productive editors" means "all those who are here to help build the encyclopedia." It includes people who do other useful tasks than write articles. It includes everybody who even wants to be useful. It includes everybody except the people who are here only because they enjoy wasting the time of others. You might not think there are people like that on Wikipedia, but believe me, I've met them. We should try to keep them out, IMO. All productive editors are equal, and equally deserving of care, and of allowances for their sensitivities. Does that clear things up? Bishonen | talk 02:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

In that case I think you could have worded your opinion more clearly. Tony Sidaway, Camildo, Kylu, basically everyone involved in this case is a "productive editor" by your definition. I agree with your clarification of your statement, but I just don't see how it is relevant here. I have seen a disturbing tendency from Giano and Ghirlandajo to emphasize their own contributions and suggest others should look to their own rather than carp over issues of civility. I think you would do well to dissociate yourself from these comments and perhaps advise them not to take this approach. --Ideogram 02:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak to Giano anymore. He has gone too far in his stubborn pursuit of Kylu. I still have some respect for you but if you try to defend him in this matter that will be gone. --Ideogram 07:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all right, I think you and I were done anyway. You asked a question, I attempted a clarifying reply, you offered me some advice in return. I will take your suggestions into consideration. Goodbye. Bishonen | talk 09:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

Velten blocked for three weeks

I caught Velten tampering with talk pages and continuing to harass me on the Furtado articles, so I've blocked her for three weeks. Feel free to review, undo, shorten, lengthen, whatever. Extraordinary Machine 17:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Is this one supposed to be male or female? It's so hard for him to keep up with his sexual identification, I'm sure. Geogre 17:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Be careful Extraordinary Machine you may end up blocked for a month! Giano 17:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you. --Ideogram 01:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To look or not? Esse quam videre

Do not look if you're awake on the day you consider Monday. However, there is now a first draft by Fred of the proposed decision. Remember how upsetting the first draft of the EE decision was. For my part, I need to sleep, so I won't look. Geogre 02:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

By way of clarification, there's a draft of the first part of the proposed decision, but he hasn't gotten to the bulk of the findings or to the remedies yet. There is also Dmcdevit's preliminary views on the workshop talk page. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Sorry, I had already looked, at both... I've been chatting with BoG, the most compulsive watchlist-watcher in the world, and he has been updating me on any and all news hot off the griddle. I know you're only giving me the outworks here. This may be the most updated I've been in my life. On the day I consider Tuesday, I shall also think. ;-) Bishonen | talk 05:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC).

I looked, and I was right not to look before and wrong to look now. Maybe I'm just too much of a writing freak (although not a professional proofreader), but the decision is plagued by the same nebulous and meaningless language and special pleading as Fred's comments on the workshop. He's saying things like "Don't bait. Don't take the bait," but it's only gradually clear (in the signing statements, as it were) that agreeing to either is to agree that Giano baited and Tony took the bait. "Trolling is bad," and that means nothing at all, except that he believes that "trolling" is what I've done. He also argues, more than once, that it's a mere quibble over Carnildo and that only arbcom gets a voice. This is despite the pretty incredible evidence that Radiant! offered. Fred insists that anyone who gets demoted will never prevail on an RFA in the future, and Radiant! offered data that such is not the case. He insists that it was a small group complaining about the Carnildo affair, when Radiant!'s evidence established the reasoning behind the no votes.

No, I shouldn't have looked. I'm not the Master of Logic, but there is such winking and private reasoning going on there that even my modest abilities are offended. Geogre 12:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I couldn't believe it when Fred insisted that the problem with Tony's civility was that he let himself be baited (unstated premiss: baiting was what the other side were doing, not offering convictions or arguments of their own). Dmcdevit's comment about how Bishonen, Irpen, and Ghirla "don't seem sufficiently involved or problematic" (I'm supposing, sufficiently to be sanctioned or censored) also sounds to me like the only use of input from the community is as a yardstick for whether people need to be told off for offering it or not--I see nothing about anybody's input being of information or enlightenment. As you say, Radiant's analysis would have been a good candidate for that. I hope I'm reading too much into it. Perhaps I should comment on the page. But if comments are mere potential offenses, it seems a bit of a waste of time to offer them. Bishonen | talk 12:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC).

It seems, when he has tried to spell it out, that he's saying: disagree, get told off, stop talking. If the other person won't do the right thing, you have to let him do the wrong thing, else you're trolling, because it's "sterile." So, speak only if you win, but you will only know if you will win by speaking, but, if you do not win, tug your forelock and get back to singing spirituals. Needless to say, I am "sufficiently involved," no doubt, to be upbraided for believing what I believe and expressing it. Geogre 13:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going out for a burger (anyone care to join me?) back later. Giano 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of emails are coming in, are you sure you are pressing send properly, have you just received one from me titled FS? Giano 20:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just re-emailed you, this time about the place in the Veneto, I am very busy working on a statement, I can do without this disruption! Giano 20:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you received the Veneto email - you are sending to the new address? why not try Wiki-mail? Giano 20:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe I'm receiving everything from you, yes. I'm now trying send from my gmail account. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC).

Sent, please check. Since you're receiving mail from BoG's gmail account, using mine seems quite hopeful. If it still doesn't work, I suggest putting it in a sandbox of mine, how about that? Bishonen | talk 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC).

Right, now I've posted my belated evidence, I can give you my full attention. What have you done with the copyedit for the re-write of Drottningholm Palace? If you have lost it, or sent it into outer space I shall be very angry indeed. An email came in from you a few minutes ago which was interesting. Thank you. Please try to find Drottningholm Palace, because I am very angry indeed tonight as it is, so angry in fact that I don't really trust myself here tonight, so am going to bed to finish of my H de R book and leave this place to its own devices. Giano 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am very angry too.[48] Bishonen | talk 21:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC).

• I'm logging off for the night, suggest you do the same, and Geogre and anyone else with half a brain. Giano 21:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In the words of General Anthony McAuliffe: "NUTS!".

Anyway, Bish, I noticed this comment, about Wikipedia:Featured lists - don't you like them? Surely annotated lists of information are encyclopedic? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, ALoan, you're the first to notice. It's quite annoying to throw down a gauntlet and get nothing! Well, I don't have to like everything that's encyclopedic, do I? And while some lists are unexceptionable or even useful, you know the absurdities that the category covers as well as I do. Better, probably. Even though you may be less guilty of adding to them. Bishonen | talk 14:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC).

Was that a challenge? You rogue! I feel thoroughly baited now. Hook, line and sinker. Well, sometimes a list is the best way of presenting information. I would suggest Test cricket hat-tricks, or List of inhabited islands of Croatia. Yours is lovely, of course. WP:FLC gets its fair share of episode guides (and hurricanes, and Test cricket captains) though. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Magna cum laude

What's really irritating is that this artificial storm, this rage of Caliban, has kept us from honoring ALoan for Durer's Rhinoceros. It's a great article, from idea to FA in record time, and it puts me to shame and inspires the sin of envy. (I did write all of cretic in two edits. I had it in one, but I made a stupid typo with "imab" for "iamb.") I don't know that the concept is very clear to any non-prosodists, but I tried. Geogre 00:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone think it's worth writing Cockney School? It's just one ill-tempered critic's term for Keats and Leigh Hunt. It's interesting in that it shows class consciousness marring Romanticism's 2nd generation. Oh, and who was working on Thomas Killigrew? I found Pepys saying things about him (about his beyond young and scandalous and witty and not serious enough to be one of the king's favorites). I also have Pepys, of course, ranting about A Midsummer Night's Dream being the worst play he'd ever seen, but that quote is famous enough to be useless. Geogre 00:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, damn it! Someone beat me to Cockney School! (If any of my watchers want to see me curse, look carefully now.) #$!#@$! Geogre 00:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Whew. It's just a ridiculous redirect. (Who thought of making that a redirect?) Geogre 00:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not an article? I consider it quite a famous concept, please do write about it! Keats was indeed looked down on for class reasons, though I hadn't heard that about Leigh Hunt. Btw I like the Leigh Hunt pic in The Country Wife, see if you agree. You are so right about the rhino, I've had thoughts of celebrating ALoan by... well, never mind what, if I can swing it you shall see. Bishonen | talk 01:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC).

That picture makes him look like a legitimate cool cat, which is never how I've thought of him. One reason for writing Cockney School (and not letting it get folded into a "list of" article) is that it changes our readings to remember that these were not just young turks in the Shelley sense but young turks in the Allen Ginsberg sense. They were grime covered as well as great. (It's very hard to read Keats's poetry and think that he didn't live in the country. A city dweller did "Eve of St. Agnes?" How odd.) (Then again, a farm country boy did Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.) Geogre 01:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw this painting of Killigrew (or a copy) at the weekend, hanging in Dyrham Park. In Venice, wearing silly hat and robe, reading Eikon Basilike, with Charles I looking on. Very subtle... -- ALoan (Talk) 09:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

We have that picture up around here somewheres. BTW, the Eikon Basilike article is pretty good. I'm delighted that we have it. Because our versions of the painting will always be small and on a screen, I had no idea what he was reading, nor that Chuck was watching. There are a lot of potential meanings for that, you know. I must get the research in. Janet Todd treats it as assured that everyone knows Killigrew was the spymaster of Charles II. Geogre 12:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Found it. Click through - it is on Theatre Royal, Drury Lane and Gibbon's Tennis Court but not his own article! Click through - you can just about read the papers on the desk. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I rememberd that BoG had gotten it late. The painting is a classic, too. Follow the gaze motion: dog to Tom to you. Follow the structural motion: dog to Tom's back to Charles to book pile to book to dog. Follow the interior structural motion, and you go dog's back to book to arm to finger to face. Great composition, and the dog's gaze is really touching. Also visible in there is the vogue for large dog collars. It would continue. Remember, one of the bits of Pope everyone knows is the "Epigram Writ for the Collar of a Dog":

I am his majesty's dog at Kew,

Pray, tell me Sir, whose dog ar you?

You can't get that on a conventional "Return if lost" dog tag, and it was a plate on the collar itself. Look how wide the collar is on Tom's dog. (Yeah, I would notice the doggie.) Geogre 13:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

At long last, Geogre seems to believe that the painting actually is of Killigrew. Now about that pie... :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Watch it! I don't need you pulling my tail, too. As for the picture, I cannot be sure if it is Tom Killigrew or Tom D'Avenant, as I never met the gentleman, but that's certainly Killigrew's dog. (Or, "Don't bother me, boy. Don't you know I have an army?" Or, "I never said it wasn't, and I defy to to find the diff." Or....) We need an article on collars that can generate List of famous dog collars and Dog collar fashions. (If more than one of those is blue, I'm going to pull out the delete button.) Geogre 15:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You do know that I'm making fun of myself there, I hope. By the way, every time it comes up on my watchlist I'm reminded that the article I'm proudest of (not the best by any means) is film adaptation. It's the best wiki-success I've had. Started as a substub, rewrote it from my head and my training, and then folks have generally added good stuff right along. It's rarer that something like that happens than that something all from one's solo work does, but it's really neat when it does. Geogre 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I knew you were kidding; I hope your army knows too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Shrug. NPG says it is him.

I did James Leslie Hamilton, 4th Baron Hamilton of Dalzell in one go, but it is not as nice as cretic. Harry Wingfield is shorter and older, but nicer (and I see a few flaws now I look back). I don't think I should play this game...

Anyway, my rhino got over 200 edits yesterday! It seems that about 30,000 people viewed it (#132 on the top 200 list today, with about 8,000 per day over 4 days, give or take 40%) although although 40,000 - #65 - clearly clicked on the image on the main page and got a surprise. Clara got a little boost too. And there were just a few good comments and improvements amongst the slew of dross and vandalism (if you look carefully though the diffs and on the talk page).

Lord of the Rings and Lost (TV series) are miles ahead, of course. Currently, even Amish is beating the usual sex-related perennial favourites. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• So, how do you find all that out? No, don't tell me. I'd probably want the honor of having A Tale of a Tub pass Attalus I in the "least clicked" category. I know it's got to be near the bottom. Even Orrmulum has to be miles in front of it, given the fact that it mentioned Lincoln or something in its first sentence and thus would have prompted hometown clickers. ("Hello, Cleveland! And Duchess of Cleveland, how do you do, too?") The "one edit per article" game is one of my own creation, and really just a challenge to myself, because I saw Interiot's tool and was horrified that I was spending 4 edits per page. I wanted to reduce that number as much as possible. I know it sounds like proving a point, given the current "evidence that's not evidence but posted from a blog for some reason other than evidence" boast of 10,000 vs. 1,000 edits in a year, but it really has been my goal to write one thing well from start to finish in one throw. (Oh, and ALoan, I had asked Grapes why he had a picture of Dryden up under the "Killigrew" heading at Drury Lane, so he was just rubbing it in a bit.) Geogre 17:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Click! Yesterday's edits on the rhino are there for all to see (it helps to have it as a link on a page and then look at "related changes"). And there is a magic "tool" that works out how many times a pages has been seen per day in a given month. (I mentioned Clara because there was a flurry of activity yesterday, which cannot be coincidence - she is mentioned). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)