This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bishonen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
(Looks at box. Begins to have epileptic seizures. Decides that those are better than the FAC/FAR talk pages. Puts the London Olympic mascot and the Bishzilla banner on split screen, enjoys the clarity.) Geogre12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Rude
I'm sorry if you thought my rationale was rude. I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I did feel like your revert was a bit strange since it gushed about one particular edit that was basically a revert and a removal of text. I'm not sure that that kind of edit is ever very spectacular, but if you're willing to concede a difference of opinion, bury the hatchet, and move on I'm more than willing to go along with you. --ScienceApologist12:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Old discussion I picked up on and replied to here. Though you might be interested. Do you have a link to the original FAR discussion? Carcharoth22:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Bishonen in admin purdah, but that never stop her from wheel-warring. All she think of is hearing El C's chipmunk stories at Niagara Falls [dino snort]. 'shonen naughty admin, turn her bit over to 'zilla! 12:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC). (See 'zilla world-class cool animated sig!)
One of the involved admins (anti-me, obviously) is now trying to legitimize the user who blocked (see the latter's talk page). El_C21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
How do you legitimize an account that retired, came out of retirement for a single block, and then went back to sleep. Sure looks illegitimate to me. Geogre02:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, as per your email: "the person" petting, feeding, etc. (not with the dress) —and taking pictures at the same time— is none other than yours truly! (today's addition was the result of an hour and a half of chipmunk lounging, between 3:00 and 4:30pm). El_C04:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
How adorable! I love chipmunks, I've never lived anywhere which had them though. I stayed at a house with a backyard full one month, spent most of my free time watching them. They are such comics. Puppy now has chipmunk envy. KillerChihuahua?!?11:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The key to their little hearts: peanuts. Mind you, other chipsters I've met are so timid, they don't pick up peanut till well after you leave. These are tamest chippies, groundhog, and rabbitty, ever! I'll have another go at it soon. El_C19:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
All fed chipmunks look like Dizzy Gillespie (or April Gillespie), but the one to my left, with the peanut hanging out of his mouth, swaying, looks for all the world like he's playing the peanut and performing jazz. Geogre13:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Bishonen. Thanks for the adminship award you left on my talk page. Of course I'm a bit hurt that you didn't support me, but then I always knew that the monster was much nicer than you! (Did you see the lovely chipmunk she left for me?)
I have a question, as I know you're very experienced. I know that if someone creates an article with the title misspelled, and lots of edits are made, it would not be appropriate to copy and paste the contents into a new article with the correct title, as the history has to be preserved. So you'd simply move the page, and then delete the old title or not, as appropriate.
As you can see from the conversation here and here, someone created Category:Novels by George Elliot, and then realised the the spelling was incorrect, so he put a db tag on it. The page Category:Novels by George Eliot already existed. I had actually just gone to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, to try out my new buttons, and I found the Elliot category and deleted it. I then found that the creator had also created Category:Works by George Elliot. There was no Category:Works by George Eliot. I wondered would it be possible to move it, but there's no move button for categories. I suggested that he should create the page again with the correct title, if he feels that that category is necessary (I'm not sure that it is), but I'd just like to double check with you that that's the right way to do it. It does seem that in the case of a category, there wouldn't be whole paragraphs of text that would have to be attributed to the correct editor, so there probably isn't any problem with GFDL issues. Thanks. ElinorD(talk)10:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of categories could be put on a pinky nail, so why don't you ask the monster (snort)? Seriously, your solution is exactly what I would spontaneously do myself. Kevin has created Category:Works by George Eliot now, and is clearly on board for the misspelt one to be speedy deleted, so go ahead. It might could maybe be redirected instead... if categories ever are, I'm not sure. Anyway, I don't see any real point. As for the need for Category:Works by George Eliot, I'm rather dubious about that, too. GE did write plenty of non-fiction, to be sure, but nothing anybody would be likely to read today. I'd bet good money it's all out of print. But it can't hurt, can it? Maybe there's something of interest, such as collected letters. If you're feeling really ambitious (new brooms..) you could always keep an eye on the Works category, and propose it for deletion if it's still unpopulated in a month or two. Perhaps Kevin is planning to write articles for it? Bishonen | talk10:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for that, and sorry for disturbing you while you were kind of on a wikibreak. I had actaully seen the notice on your page earlier, but when you posted on mine, I assumed it was over. Someone else has deleted the "Elliot" category; Kevin had put a db tag on it. As for why I don't ask the monster, well, while she's very superior to you in graciousness and gentleness, I think you just manage to beat her in literacy. Her coding skills greatly impress me, but she seems a little weak on verbs, so I thought it was unlikely that she's just finished reading Impressions of Theophrastus Such, so I wasn't sure she'd know much about whether a separate category for works as opposed to novels of GE would be appropriate. I'll ask Kevin if he's planning on writing articles to fill the category. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)09:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note
I don't want to say that you and Giano are a "side" -- I think everyone is in this project together -- but I have noticed that the two of you do a lot of work together, and also that you fixed a typo in one of his posts, tonight, and I also know that you've felt alienated at times, and... I dunno, it just generally seemed that I should leave you this note. I'm sorry if I've ever contributed to that. I would like to think that I haven't, but that's more about what you feel than what I want. I really do mean what I said at AN/I, and at Giano's talk page, and what I'm saying here, now. I'm going to be offline for most of tomorrow, but I hope that I can come home to a wiki, and a community of fellow editors, that is more or less at peace with itself. Concluding essays and notes has never been my strong point, so I'll just finish with this: thank you. – Luna Santin (talk)12:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Luna. Thanks for communicating. I've got to say, I don't know what you conflict of interest is, though you call it "obvious".[2]. That's something I've obviously missed, and it could account for the trouble I have in knowing what you mean altogether. But I appreciate the gesture. Bishonen | talk10:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
Re: Giano's block
Qué? THAT sentence[3]? Blocked for incivility? I don't get it. Please explain what's uncivil about it—it may be moderately tactless, perhaps, but blockably incivil?—becaue I'm very much inclined to unblock. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC).
It appears that Giano moved my comments out of line in the preceding paragraph and into its own paragraph, presumably to remove the context. Here is the full thread as it was before my comment was moved. --bainer (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? I'm having trouble believing my eyes here. He moved it "presumably to remove the context"? What kind of assumptions are you making? What kind of example of civility are you setting? And what kind of logic is that, for that matter? You supply a link to an edit of Giano's, and you say that you're blocking because of that edit. Are you claiming you didn't know where your link points, because Giano had moved your block message from its (I have to say very poorly conceived) placement in the midst of a thread? And as Geogre points out, you didn't even post on ANI before blocking an established editor for (non-existent) incivility... I think I must stop talking here before I say something I'll regret. Bishonen | talk15:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC).
No I moved it so it could be clearly seen and responded to, as you slipped a little thing like a block in mid thread. You did not post it on WP ANI either, I can understand that you were ashamed of it but hiding it like that was a bit naughty. Giano15:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Bishonen, do you think I could recruit -bainer to help work some NPOV into some of the LGAT and Scientology articles? If Giano's block was for incivility, I can only imagine the blocks that would be done at those articles for incivility on the talk pages. Lsi john16:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Now, now. Bainer is being too quick, in my opinion, but he was engaged in dialog with Giano. He picked the wrong diff as proof, though, no doubt. Kelly is one of the few to have given up the tools under a cloud who is there, but she's not the only one, and that's more scandalous than that she is there. The place seems to have not very much connection to its name at all. If "former admins we trust," why not "future admins we trust?" Why not "former Wikipedians we trust?" Why not "outsiders we trust?" Better yet, "Why this channel at all?" It's that last one that has never been answered satisfactorily for me. Geogre18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
You know, I had not known for sure that it was deleted after IRC conversation, but that was the only likely explanation. From the nomination to the declining to the erasure was lightning quick. I don't think we need to point to that, really. There are so many things that affect by-standers that come from that wretched slough that we hardly need to point to one that seems to have been insiders against insiders. Geogre19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I read through the conversation dialogue. Although it was clearly opinionated, and heated, nothing jumped out and slapped my face and said INCIVIL or PERSONAL ATTACK. I do not support the way Giano was expressing himself, though I have found myself at that level of frustration too, in the past. For me, its a matter of an 'involved admin' making a decision on their own, rather than tossing it up for review. It puts a bad light on the entire process and on all admins. I do acknowledge, though, that my sarcasm was not polite and I have retracted it.
Bainer, I apologize for the sarcasm.
It's simply too easy for an admin to pull-the-trigger when they're personally and emotionally involvded. It simply should not be done. There is no shortage of admins to make these blocking decisions. It's not necessary to make them on our own. And, why allow for the possibility of conflict-of-interest (being involved personally) to even enter into the question. Get a neutral admin to make the decision, and the block will look better, smell better and will less likely be overturned. Lsi john18:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh nonsense. I mean, I agree with everything you say above, but IMO sending thebainer off to babysit the Scientology articles is one of the best ideas I've heard in years. KillerChihuahua?!?20:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Or if he's hot to block for incivility, he could block Proto/Neil for that highly offensive "shakes the sand out of their vaginas" comment. That's it for me today, I'm off. I'm going to get uncivil myself if I stick around this place too much longer. Sorry for griping on your page about it Bish, but Friday went and archived the discussion which Neil started off with that bit of revolting nastiness. KillerChihuahua?!?21:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and "Neil" was nice and imperious toward me, too. He's just making friends all over today. (If you're on IRC too long, you must get used to speaking in nothing but vitriol and expecting prerogative: too much time on IRC, and these people are newbies to Wikipedia all over again.) Geogre21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
2nd Duke of Percy (Jacobite)
It's far too late and esoteric for you to be interested in, but Duke of Wharton was an interesting, tragic cat. Despite side tracking, I've finished a rewrite of the article. We really need his father, "Honest Tom," done up, as his article in the DNB has Leslie Stephens Whig triumphalism still in it, and he seems to make the son's rakishness. Some things have occurred to me -- like the generation after the rakes felt cheated, and so some of them try to out-rake the rakes. If rakes were rake-hells, these guys would be Hellfire Clubbers. It's sort of like 1980's ecstasy freaks upset that they missed 1968. Phone 3-ish? Geogre14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You know, all the attention I'm getting for saying what I've been saying for months is interesting and all, but I really want someone to notice the biography of the Duke of Wharton. It's a very interesting life. Everyone's noticing the wrong damn things that I've been writing. Hell, even on IRC I was trying to get someone to write that flippin' article on the Battle of Malplaquet, but no. See, anyone who spends time on IRC who maintains that s/h/it is editing Wikipedia at the same time is fibbing or deluded: it takes up every second of one's time. There's no way to edit, even if you have an idea, material, and the ability, because (plonk!) there is (plonk!) so much (plonk!) going on. Are they just ashamed to admit that every hour with IRC open is an hour they're not doing squat with Wikipedia, or do they think that they're editing Wikipedia by being on IRC? This is why I always regret opening up the channel. Geogre02:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, I've used whatever has passed for the "anto-vandalism channel" for a few years now, but it is more like playing whack-a-mole than article editing, I'll contend not all the IRC wiki-channels are more of a pain than an asset, fixing and kicking dumb vandals has to get done, no matter how mentally unchallenging (and for a fair amount of time that is exactly what I want). I'll certainly not disagree that article creation/editing for improvement is pretty much out of the question if absorbed by it though.--Alfmelmac12:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe you, of course. There are two things that worry me. The first is that vandal hunting is not the same as vandal defending, and I worry that vandal hunting leaves people with a bias that all users are out to mess things up and that they are the last bastion of sanity. This is a natural consequence. Talk to me after I've graded a stack of papers, and I'll probably talk to you as if you were a 3 year old. When you deal with cleaning up filth all day, you begin to see filth everywhere. Strippers think all men are sex fiends (well, alright, so it's not always unjustified). I'm sure that plumbers see all people as poop factories. Too much vandal slapping, and you start thinking that you're "clueful" and everyone else needs to be dealt with in a summary fashion. You begin to hate "process wonkery" and other things, because what you've been doing has led you to see the project in black and white terms.
The consequence of that is that you can end up with a sort of channel-wide bias against time consuming process, time consuming documentation, etc. Wikipedia is set up for documentation, no power differentials, no cabals, etc., and so too much vandal squishing can push people imperceptibly into abusive actions. "Right is right and wrong is wrong" leads to "I have blocked you for incivility because your comments just are incivil."
What this has to do with IRC is that it can work really, really well for technical updates, prevention of mass disruption, defense against -bots and the like. It works really well at quick and coordinated performance of time-consuming activities (applying a template everywhere and the like). The problem is that it therefore propagates an accidental (I do not blame the users for falling victim to the medium) extrapolation to all other matters.
This part of my complaint can only be dealt with by the users always reminding themselves that not everything is vandalism, that long time users who "go nuts" or act "stupid" probably have damned good reasons, and it is, in fact, nuts and stupid to treat them like vandals. Geogre18:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't disagree on any of that - I've seen the polarisation effect it has on certain individuals; One particular one received more than the usual share of group attempts to ameliorate their attitude, despite that, they are still are royal pain in the arse. I didn't like process-wonkery before I found out that there were vandals to whack, but that's probably due to having less of an attention span than your average hamster ;) I'm not sure what I'd do if I saw a long time user going nuts, these days with the knowledge that accounts are being compromised as well, it'd be even more difficult to decide what's going on and act accordingly. I remember spending a hell of lot of my early days on what was then VfD, that definitely warped my perception and I dumped it entirely, I still rarely visit, hence my subsequent advice that getting some kind of balance is a valuable key to not ending up wanting to throw the machine out of the window by 10am each day. I will invariably disagree with block out the blue, whether for new users vandalising a user page or for experienced users getting itchy or tetchy, there is no excuse for failing to attempt communication and going for the block button, except in circumstances like serial ip hoppping vandals whose previous messages are unlikely to have been received. I most definitely get objectionable when a substed message is dumped on my talk page, except those by bots doing their usual rounds.--Alfmelmac02:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I can't. Still, I do so many de novo articles and never submit them to DYK, I ought to have a credit that I can draw on to get a rewrite in. Next up will be probably Edmund Arwaker, then Samuel Cobb. Those are great names. Not overwhelming writers, but cool names. Geogre03:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Good catches on the article, and some of those links I had debated with myself when writing, so it all looks good to me. Now I have to just do the people I mentioned above, plus wade through the 5 pp. or so in the DNB (that's a lot in a folio) on Thomas and try to come up with something coherent. Geogre22:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: Getting set for another Giano block...?
Thebainer, I did a double take when I accidentally caught sight your new block warning in the history of Giano's page today, before the discussion above was well over.[4] After your first bad block only yesterday, you really ought to get off his case. Yesterday, you acted as if you didn't know that "Assume good faith" is official policy (though I'm sure you must), and obliviously kept repeating your bad-faith assumptions about Giano's motives—in this case, his motives for moving your badly-placed block message on his page, something for which a good-faith explanation was actually staring you in the face. When other users,, who had no trouble seeing the obvious explanation, unanimously criticized you over this, you gave no further explanation, let alone an apology to Giano. (You would like to see more civility from him; how about trying to lead by example?) You blocked an established editor for incivility, and the diff you gave as a reason showed, on any reasonable reading, no incivility. You didn't post on ANI. I mean... sheesh, there was just a lot wrong with that block.
Today (in my timezone) you begin by planting a warning template on an established user, a deplorable practice. If Giano needs blocking, don't you think that will occur to somebody else among our 1,000 admins? Do you credit yourself with unique insight into Giano's editing, so that you alone are capable of monitoring and upbraiding him? Or, if warning and blocking him doesn't occur to other admins, could that possibly be a hint that he doesn't need blocking? You took one shot; it didn't go well; now please consider leaving it to the rest of the community. Bishonen | talk17:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
Thebainer... sorry, I don't understand. It's like you haven't read my post above. My message made lots of points, and asked questions. You address none of the points and answer none of the questions. Instead you address just about the only point I didn't make. For the record, and since you bring it up, I don't think those posts of Giano's are very civil. (He's under some provocation, but that doesn't interest you, apparently.) But you shouldn't be the one to warn him; you shouldn't use a template; and it sure wouldn't hurt if you acknowledged that your first block was both unwarranted and badly executed. Now I'd really appreciate it if you'd reply to what I said. You'd be doing us both a favor. I do believe it would be good for your adminning to take my messages seriously, and take them on board to the extent of doing some self-reflexion. If you have no faith in me, please consider taking the matter to ANI and inviting other input. Thank you. Bishonen | talk09:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC).
You should read this conversation on Geogre's talk page if you haven't already. He was also under the impression that the block was made in response to that one diff, and not after all of the ones preceding it and my discussion with Giano. --bainer (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Those both are somewhat accurate. That user does tend to watchlist the contributions of me and some others, and he likes to show up with no connection to the issue simply to voice his own displeasure at some perceived slight of the distant past. That's either disruption or trolling or uncivil editing by him, and it has gotten him blocked before. It may get him blocked again. N.b. how he says that he has no opinion on the issue. Well, what does he have an opinion about? 3 headings in a row to attack me and Giano. That's flat out, bona fide, cast iron, gilded disruption. I don't know how others feel, but I regard his input as generally ignorable, and so I don't block over things like that. What Giano was saying was pretty accurate: Ideogram has started on the same path that has in the past led to a block. Do, please, check out the history of that user. He's really, really holding a grudge. Geogre12:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry too much here. Let the Bainer think what he likes. Further comment will own atract unwelcome attention. Giano12:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Only in case you really didn't understand it: The warning referred to Giano's mocking of Ideogram's mental condition, which he just complained about on the VP. I don't know what your conflict was about, but "that's flat out, bona fide, cast iron, gilded" incivility and deserves a warning. Malc8213:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Giano isn't doing himself any favors. I AGF'd the thread on WP:VP and was working with Ideogram, and in pops Giano with stalking comments. (a bit of irony there actually). And, now Ideogram, seems to be choosing martyr over resolution. Based on his follow up comments, I'm no longer sure Ideogram was there for advice and resolution, as much as perhaps looking for an ally. Though admittedly it isn't an uncommon psychological response, Ideogram appears to be more interested in making it about others than in looking at what changes he could make to his own behavior. And, unfortunately, Giano isn't doing much better. Lsi john18:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You're way, way, way late. Ideogram is really, really not interested in resolution. For example, he keeps saying that I won't talk to him, even when I'm talking to him, because, apparently, I'm not going to be talking about him to him. I was at that damned page to talk about whether or not we should host a page about an external site. Ideogram was there to complain about me. The findings of trolling in his behavior are not new. He has been blocked for trolling the same people in the same way. He will be again. At this point, it's just boring. The reason no one is "talking to him" is that he's not talking about the damned issues -- the reason we're all at the page -- but instead talking about how much he doesn't like me and Giano. There are lots of people who don't like me and whom I don't like. I still manage to sleep at night. Geogre19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
How can anyone understand what isn't said? Dude, it looks like an accurate characterization of Ideogram's behavior and maybe even a good idea. Do you think we should block people for vandalism reports of vandalism? Is it a block for "H" for saying that Giano was uncivil? If it's a basic attempt at a genuine description of a person disrupting the project, it's not "incivil." Giano was being accurate. Ideogram is trolling. You're prejudiced in the matter. So what, exactly, is getting gained by templates and more spitting? Waste of time. Utgard Loki14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, warning Giano about incivility is perfectly correct when Giano is being uncivil. (H)14:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
user:Geogre/IRC considered has two new major findings: "The 'don't be a jerk' phenomenon" and "Echo chamber" to try to explain how a proper point of view gets blamed for "harshing my mellow." I'm sure you will think that it's not stated forcefully enough, but I can't help it. I'm a nice guy. Geogre19:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
DYFK
Did you friggin' know . . . that Anynobody is now seeking to turn his "brief and concise" AN/I post into a four-way User RfC on everyone he fantasizes about? You are included. --Justanother00:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow! That's both amusing and a little disgusting. And, as you say, concise. Very gracious of Anynobody to allow me to post on the admins' noticeboard, but I don't think I'll avail myself of his permission. Oh, dear, I hope people don't just skip over it for being long and dull-looking. I hope people notice it. Hey, people? Bishonen | talk00:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC).
I especially like the way he took Jossi's offer to help out of context and somehow makes it look nefarious. Which is, of course, my objection to the Orsini sandbox page; it is nothing but that. As I mention on Jossi's page, I love how AN never fails to prove my point for me. --Justanother00:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^demon[omg plz]16:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I made this cake myself, from recipe, and the frosting, and I photographed it myself, and I uploaded it myself, tagged it myself, described it myself, and applied it myself, all for your user talk page. Geogre18:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)I love it, Geogre!Bishonen
Geogre invited me to take a slice (looks much like a cake I had recently - do you work in Konditor & Cook, Geogre?). Yum.
¡Muchas felicitaciones! Or even Grattis! (surely that can't be right - I hope it doesn't mean "free".. ) -- ALoan(Talk)19:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
mmmmmMMMMM! Thanks very much, Geogre, did you really bake it yourself? And who're you calling a tart, mister? [tasting]... fabulous! ALoan, orthography alert, please. "GraTTis" is short for "conGRATulations". Free is "gratis". Here's a multilanguage poem for you:
"Fritos betide ingrates/ Nor that gallic steak 'n taters." Sure. I bakéd myself. It's just a 1-2-3-4 cake (easily done in any system, as it's about the proportions, not the measurements: 1 cup butter, 2 cups sugar, 3 cups flour, 4 eggs (or liters or mililiters or grams), plus 1.5 tsp vanilla, some milk). The frosting is harder (and hardening, as it requires the use of shortening, like all good frostings do). The knife I didn't make, but the cut in the cake I did. Geogre20:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Happy Birthday Sweatheart! - diamonds should always match the colours of your eyesViennese fingers for one of the nicest Wikipedians (though still not as nice as the monster)! ElinorD(talk)21:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just heard it was your birthday today/yesterday - nice to know I share a birthday with you! Hope you had a good one :) Riana(talk)20:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've held my fingers long enough: the photo at the top of this page needs a caption: "If I can take this nut back to my nest, I'll eat like a king all winter!" Utgard Loki12:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Many Happy No Returns (I hope you liked all of your presents!) And here I am a day late and no present. I hope your birthday was wonderful!!!!! KillerChihuahua?!?21:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The IP that I am editing from (142.176.46.3) is a shared IP, as I am working in an office building. There have been a few vandalisms from it, and I'd prefer not to just have the IP blocked as a whole. So, I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask, but could you place one of those nifty semi-blocks on it? You know, that one that requires you to log in to edit. Dan19:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the block, I figure the same guys who are vandalizing probably won't make an account, but if they do, the IP will remain unaffected, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lychosis (talk • contribs)
The IP will remain blocked, yep. And if they create accounts, I hope somebody will block, or at least warn, them. (Nobody except CheckUsers has any way of connecting accounts with the IP, so unfortunately I can't keep an eye out for them myself.) Bishonen | talk21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC).
Well, thanks again. I've just really started to try and contribute lately, and I wouldn't have wanted it to be cut short so soon by a complete IP block. Also, my apologies for that previous unsigned comment. Dan21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Heroics
You know, if you look at the bottom of my talk page, you can see an occasion to boldly step into the breach with research skills. Geogre21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey Bishonen. Sorry for the confusing stuff on Talk:I Not Stupid, and I understand your confusion. The talk page is still open, and comments are still accepted on the most recent GA review. If you go to Talk:I Not Stupid#GA Review (Failed), just click on the edit link and add your comments. That message, "This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it", pertains what is inside the hidden box. If you click "show" on that tan box, it will reveal an archived discussion that took place on a page that is buried in the edit histories of Good Article Review. Again, sorry if it's confusing. It was just my attempt to rescue some important discussion about the article's development and archive it in an accessible place. Hope this helps. Take care! — WiseKwai19:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I stupid, what can I say? I've posted a comment now, anyway. Probably all the wrong kind for a GA, but, well, there it is. Thanks for showing me how. Bishonen | talk21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC).
One Night in Hackney
Hi Bishonen, I received a request from ONiH (via email) about deleting his page. Since he had an active block at the time, I didn't feel comfortable doing so at the time, but I reconfirmed it once his block expired, and he confirmed that he still wanted to endorse his "Right to Vanish", so I deleted his pages per Meta's Right to Vanish that stated one of the options was Delete your user and user talk subpages (contact an administrator). Since you've gone ahead and undeleted it, would you mind terribly redeleting it when you're finished reviewing it? I'd love to get ONiH back as an editor, but I think it's going to be some time before he feels he can deal with the amount of stick he got here. SirFozzie22:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Reading the Meta Right to Vanish talk page, apparently that's an exclusion (one of those things that I wish was written into the policy, that everyone but me seemed to know (I never get invited to the right meetings, apparently), but no big deal. Thanks for setting me straight :) SirFozzie22:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict: "exclusion"?) Well, I'm not sure it's appropriate. A user talkpage isn't a "user talk subpage". Check out the principle as laid out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userpage#How_do_I_delete_my_user_and_user_talk_pages.3F . Were there grievous legal threats or something? It's not that I want to make problems for the user, but he probably doesn't know talkpages are considered special in this regard. Wait a second, I'll blank it. ... ok, there. And finally, as you'll have seen, Iamunknown is reviewing it also. I think I'll leave it blanked with an undeleted history while I think about it a little. Bishonen | talk22:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC).
No, no legal threats, just he happened to edit on a very contentious subject (Northern Ireland), and ran into a lot of edit wars, commonly targeted for comments like "Who cares about the viewpoint of folks who support terrorists" (that only got a warning from the admin who blocked him for calling someone who was blocked for vandalism a vandal), and the such, and it got to be a bit too much for him, and he had a tendency to be blunt and give back as good as he got. As for the other part, no big deal, if it needs to stay undeleted, it can stay undeleted. SirFozzie22:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
He has emailed me again, requesting it be redeleted and cited | this as justification it can be deleted, but I will not undelete it. Perhaps we could move the username or something similar? SirFozzie00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Bishonen! Firstly, please allow me to apologise for unilaterally undoing your recent admin action (re-deleting ONIH's talk page) without prior consultation. You certainly deserve this professional courtesy and I am certainly in the wrong for not extending it. It's a bit difficult for me to cite policies and such in conversation, as I much prefer simply talking directly. ONIH has been a terrific help to our project, but unfortunately he's recently been in a bit of a situation and has apparently become a bit jaded with the project and has chosen to leave. It's proper that we respect his wishes with regards to "his" userspace, isn't it? Perhaps I'm just a bit daft, but it seems quite reasonable to me, hehe. Again, apologies for not discussing this with you first. Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú?08:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Great identification of the central problems. Although there isn't much wrong with what's actually there, a good amount needs to be added. I didn't have the time to thoroughly review the article as you did (due to prior engagements on Wikipedia of my own), but I believe the editors of I Not Stupid will be content with your wonderful analysis. Regards, NSR77TC23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Dude! Put on some pants! This is not one of those sorts of websites. At least bring back the young lady with the really attractive shoulders and neck. Geogre18:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
! It's just a Cardinal, and a male cardinal, at that. I was expecting...you know... a bird and a chippie. Oh, well, cardinals I've got, and lots of 'em. House finches, too, although I'd gladly shoot a few dozen, and the coolest bird with the worst song, the Black capped chickadee. (Carolina chickadees are even cuter.) It's the other sort of bird I'm lacking. (And she did have very nice shoulders and arms.) Geogre20:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Just so everyone can see about the cutest little boid in the woild, here it is. It's about the size of a chipmunk, so the stripey little rodent actually could stalk one. ("When you say Carolina/ Say North Carolina/ When you say North Carolina/ Say U-N-C" is a fooball cheer up in the Tarheel state.) A Carolina Chickadee says, when it says 'Carolina,' U-N-C.
Giano cruises below the surface not taking the bait.
...to lure Giano back, but I think you'll have to be even more wily than that. Perhaps me comparing him to a fish will help. Yomanganitalk22:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps comparing the nibbling forces to krill would do it? Ah, but I must be stopped, as satire is surely some kind of meanness, as we all found out with Giano. I think every citizen of the English speaking world should have to read Dunciad and Bickerstaffe papers, just so they can begin to understand the difference between satire ("lash the vice, not the man") and insult. An insult is easily dismissed with a "says you," but a satire gets at the heart of the problem: obnoxious behaviors. Geogre02:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I wish you and other admins could do something about User:Arthur Rubin abusing his admin status. He was edit warring over domain kiting with me in the past, and then immediately went to threaten to block *me* for edit warring when he was just as guilty (and moreso in that case) of edit warring on that article. Of course when I pointed that out he threatened to block me (and I think even *did* block me) for "incivility" because it was "uncivil" of me to point out that he was breaking policy (all while he accused me of breaking policy and didn't seem to think that was uncivil of him). And of course I was right in that conflict and eventually the domain kiting article was kept as a forward to domain tasting just as I had always said it should, and he has been looking for other things to try to threaten me over ever since.
Problem is he is now threatening all the exact same nonsense over photo editing -- where he is actively edit warring there to revert to an old version and then puts threats on my talk page and again is threatening blocks for the civility thing when I told him he should not be giving out warnings to me considering his past history. He also threatened in the past over Adobe Photoshop and Photoshopping, both of which the eidts he opposed did prevail in the end. Now he seems to be making a stand months later at photo editing, which is a conflict over the exact same issue resolved in earlier disputes.
I've also seen the same admin abusing his power in conflict with other editors. He's clearly someone who needs some looking at, and I had to have several people warn him off after the domain kiting incident, where he was STILL threatening to block me unless I reverted back to the version *he* wanted even *after* multiple people told him he was wrong. DreamGuy03:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It'd take a lot to track all the incidents down, but edit shows him explicitly saying that he would revert the page and lock it to keep his preferred version as a reply to a comment from an outside editor asking him to not edit the page at all until it could be discussed. (And later discussion and continued status of article supported my side of the dispute.) At this point he has given a half-hearted apology on my talk page (looks like from your prompting) for being uncivil but still claims he sees nothing wrong with making threats with his admin powers to enforce his side of edit disputes. DreamGuy05:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Awww crap
Bishonen, I may have just inadvertently broken my promise to you. Though the promise did not specifically include WP:CSN, and was related to 'filing frivolous complaints' against the foursome, it is possible that I have broken the spirit of my promise and that would not be acceptable to me.
My post was more of a 'response to the situation' at CSN, than the AN/I posts which prompted your involvment in the first place. It was not until a moment ago that it occured to me that the post could conflict with my promise.
If you feel that I have broken my promise, I will redact the post and apologize to all parties.
No no. Not at all. No reason why you wouldn't post at WP:CSN in response, as you say, to the ongoing situation. That's not the kind of thing I had in mind when I tried to broker a peace. And Anynobody's refusal to cooperate made the whole thing moot from the start anyway. Bishonen | talk18:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC).
Thank you. Though, I am still chagrined for not thinking to ask you before I posted.
It turns out that it may be a moot point anyway, as Durova has deleted the entire thread, in contradiction to her previous rulings in two prior threads. I've asked her for clarification. This is a difficult wikibreak, could you 'block' me for a couple days (at my request), to help me stay 'breaked'? Lsi john19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen, I understand that you think I am not trying to cooperate with your attempts at brokering peace. However as I said when you first broached your proposal, I haven't been doing the actions you were proposing. I asked for proof that I was then and you were unable (or unwilling) to provide anything beyond one diff which I was able to explain:
Your proposal, related to me, was stop posting to Justanother's/Lsi john's talk pages needlessly as well as not excessively posting to the Administrator noticeboards (which I assumed you meant to include all of the boards, ANI, 3RR, etc.)
Could you please cite any incident(s) of my behavior which you believe show actions on my part that your proposal would have corrected, and then show examples of how I made the proposal moot? As I said then, I wasn't doing those things then and I'm not doing them now. I don't mean to imply that there is no way I could have wrecked your proposal, I simply want you to show how I did it. Anynobody21:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody, if you remember, I went out of my way at the beginning of our acquaintance to extend an assumption of good faith to you. That's over. You recklessly squandered my good will. It's gone. There will be no more citing of incidents or examples, or engaging with your claim that you've been "able to explain" stuff. (To your own satisfaction, perhaps you have.) Been there, and a bleak, depressing waste of time it was. Don't post on my page any more, please. Bishonen | talk22:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC).
Hi
Hey, Bish. What do you think of this edit? I thought it was about the only thing I could do given the totally unsourced WP:BLP nature of the page. Not that I doubt the veracity but it needs sourcing! --Justanother20:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Elonka again, joined by SlimVirgin
Remember that false sockpuppet tag on the user page of an IP address I was on that Elonka placed there and you removed? Well, she didn't put the tag back, but put a false category there that said it was a proven sockpuppet of me.
I tried to remove it, and she falsely declared that it was proven by the talk page. I pointed out that it did no such thing, and she it back and apparently got SlimVirgin to the user page.
I have placed a notice about this on the ANI page, but as you were involved I thought I'd let you know directly. DreamGuy05:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm relieved that sometimes common sense can prevail, and you have a good track record in making it happen. Of course that means I've learned to bug you about things all the time, which I'm sure can be a pain sometimes. I truly appreciate your helping out when you can. DreamGuy20:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Just leave a bag of peanuts at her door step for the chipmunks. (And crackers for Zilla). Peace.Lsijohn00:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
You'll be glad to know that I don't wantcha to do anything this time. :) (other than give an opinion)
I've noticed a lot of user categories being nominated for deletion. It's a bit of a mixed bag, really. You don't want people using their userpages like homepages. But you still want people to be able to collaborate with other knowledgable/interested editors. And some categories could easily be used for either application (or possibly even both), and it's hard to guess at which is the real intent...
Anyways, I noticed that at least 28 different listings all had the exact same introductory text for them. ("WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose.")
At first, I thought it was a bit irritating. It's almost bot-like. It doesn't show that any attention or consideration is being used for each individual listing. Plainly put, if someone put thought into adding a category, it seemed like someone should put thought and consideration into taking away people's categories.
On the other hand (and this is where you come in), I've been known to be a bit overly sensitive. And sometimes even a little bit snippy. So, that's why I wanted to ask for your opinion. Too far? Just far enough, but don't push it farther?
Or, put another way, am I just being too temperamental, and do I owe him an apology? Or what?
BTW, I want that wabbit! (seriously, why do YOU get adorable critters for your page? I like critters!) :) Bladestorm19:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Blades. Personally I'm for, not unlimited, but quite wide, tolerance of the "social networking" side of userpages. Well, with my talkpage, I would have to be, wouldn't I? (/me pets a chipmunk.) I just don't see what harm it does. People who are here only to network should go somewhere else, I quite agree. I personally indefblocked a clutch of those guys a few days ago, in fact. But for productive users, I do feel that silly stuff like nihilartikels in userspace such as ... ahem...no, never mind.. or nihilusers such as Bishzilla, do serve an encyclopedic purpose. This in the sense that playing about with such childishness makes people (well, me) feel better, they cheer up users after they've been steamrolled by some pettiness, some assumption of bad faith, some insensitivity... some having your good-faith attempts reverted, ignored, despised, suspected.. some dino massage... well, you know the kind of thing. When bad stuff happens, is it better to let the burnout mount, or go create something laughable? (Such as creating a request for adminship for a roaring monster). I see those listed categories as similarly harmless and with similar potential for being helpful. Bishonen | talk19:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC).
(Such as creating a request for adminship for a roaring monster)
I'm going to jump in here, as I seem prone to do. I think levity is extremely important here. While not all articles are contentious, some are incredibly so. With that contention comes misunderstanding, frustration and often anger. Having a userpage that reflects a personality, helps editors know who they are dealing with. Heaven only knows the frustration I'm dealing with, and how thankful I am that Zilla is there to snort caustic acid on me if I don't remain cool. ;) just my 2 unasked for cents. Peace.Lsijohn20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Remember the discussion of POV on Dissociative identity disorder and Multiple personality controversy that I had you check in on a while back and that got resolved (so that the controversial nature of the diagnoses was listed in the lead instead of being removed or marginalized)? Out of nowhere a brand new account reworded it to go back to the old version marginalizing the claim, and then User:Empacher (with a peculiar edit history) and User:DashaKat showed up to revert to that version and try to harass me on my talk page about it. DashaKat has already filed a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and is trying to pull people in from an already active arbitration to support him.
Just wish these people would give it a rest, but I guess some people want to try to have their way at all costs. DreamGuy23:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably he is, in the meantime, congratulations. I see the poor old Emigrants have finally been allowed to put to sea in uncharted waters. Will they survive I wonder, or shall I throw them into deeper seas - just say the word. Giano20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't want to play the FAC game anymore, the last experience put me off. I hope the Emigration is a tolerable article, but I haven't researched it to FA level. It's pretty much all based on one book, and if some busybody should FAC it, I'll point that out. (So don't go getting ideas, any of you.)
Anyway, after the very carefully cited The Country Wife was FAR'd recently as "largely uncited", I have taken my goodbyes.[5][6] I have plenty of other things to do, as for instance, writing stuff. That's surely the main thing—FACing the stuff is merely a flourish to end on. It isn't a fun flourish for me any more, and "it takes a fillip on the flank for my mare to dance." (I'm betting Brad can tell you where that comes from. :-) ) Bishonen | talk21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
But Bishonen dear, I of course do understand, who else could feel your pain as I do, but you are being a little selfish. One does have to think of the greater good of the encyclopedia. Think of the main page, such things as Wonderbra are indeed fascinating, one "well known editor" was mesmerised and fascinated for the whole day, but eventually the page has to change subject and those little cartoon people (or whatever they are called) and decrepit old houses can not have the page all to themselves for ever, when your poor starving immigrants could be there instead - so I do beg you to reconsider, if only for the intellectual stability of us all. Giano21:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
FACing hell. The article is top quality but I'm sure I spotted a sentence that didn't have a citation - it simply won't do I tell you. And only 50 references? Those FACers expect that per paragraph.
I don't blame you for keeping away from there, and many people know how good your articles are without that little symbol. violet/riga(t)21:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes but Violet, just think how many more would see it and read it if it were on the main page - this whole think is about education - how many people do you suppose will ever wake up one morning and suddenly think "I wonder, I think I will google Swedish emigration to North America that sounds like an interesting subject" but if it is on the main page they will see it, read it, and when they have finished vandalising it, may just have learnt something they did not know before. Giano21:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
A very valid point. Given the way FAC is right now though I would fear for Bish's wikistress level - I fear that no amount of cute imagery would help. violet/riga(t)21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Lets put some spitshine on it and FAC it for her. whoop! That'll teach her to let Zilla steal articles and publish them. Peace.Lsijohn21:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is pages can languish ignored on FAC for days, only commented on in the most banal way, so if it is nominated we must make sure it is not ignored. We may ignore poor sweet little Bishzilla's views on this, as we have a duty to "be bold" but we cannot ignore the page - of course I could do a quick "tweak tweak" myself but the last time I this that to a FAC the edit summary was less than flattering [7] but it looks good enough to me anyway - the only question is who is brave enough to ignore Bishzilla's wishes? Giano22:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It can also make it to the front page on DYK. There's a cheeky monster that stole the last one, but it seems to have been taken by surprise this time. I still don't think you can use that picture though, isn't there one of some Swedes handing over their passports as they look back longingly at Malmö? Yomanganitalk22:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha! The sad thing is, this is better-written, more entertaining, and (dare I say it) better sourced than some (many?) of our FAs. Although it's still got a way to go before it's as "featured" as this.
Anyway, here's how to get around the cite cops: just start WikiProject:Really good articles (WP:RGA), for articles that give comprehensive coverage of their subjects, but lack pedantic overcitation. With the right people on the WikiProject ReallyGoodArticles "Task Force", and the right array of shiny icons, you can start promoting content right away! --Akhilleus (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the diff tutorials, I've learned a lot from them. I know being a lurker I don't really need them that often, but I would have never figured them out if you had not put them in writing. Thank you. --SGTTex01:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I miss the 'Zilla. I don't see her around very often anymore. I know you only bring her out every so often, but she's the best at controlling wikidrama and since that's mostly what I follow, I miss her...--SGTTex01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
'Zilla mostly work in project space now. Help solve difficult cases of RfC and RFAr, see here and here. Becoming power behind little god-king throne. Create content also, see personal DYK template here. Little 'shonen fast becoming mere encumbrance to 'zilla wiki career. [Drumroll on chest at thought of own importance.] Hmm, 'zilla make other, better, tutorials than 'shonen—not hard, surely! Little SGT may request tutorial of any type. Tutorials not need so many verbs, right..? bishzillaROARR!!08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
That thing
What is that logarithm thing for on top of this page with people's names on it - is it a popularity contest or something? - If so why am I not on it? Giano07:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it something to do with that very chatty and friendly email Greg Maxwell sent me about voting and using my electoral rights cos if it is I'm not sure who I'm supposed to be voting for and why? Nobody has offered me any money to vote for them yet - so it can't be a very serious election. Giano07:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha, little Giano priceless. Table thing with names is current RFA applications. (Time Bishzilla apply again!) Automagically updated — see S, O, N numbers? Support, Oppose, Neutral! bishzillaROARR!!08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
Well why have you got it, cluttering the place up for, you are already an admin - have you been promoted to head-prefect or something? Giano08:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
and now you need to update it again. I just wandered over there to see if I should vote for anyone - I always go for the ones with interesting names (just like wine be guided by the picture on the label) and it seems the Raven has fallen off it's perch [8] - pity cos that was the name that attracted me - <sigh> such is life. Giano08:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
<sigh> You're supposed to look at the updating times, they're right there. It updates automagically. Every half hour, I think. And, hey, you know how interested the monster is in adminship, I'm only obliging her. Bishonen | talk08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
Great balls of fire! I just noticed: after like one request for 'cratship a year or so (remember Mackensen's?), invariably shot down, suddenly there are five of them! (On the RFA page, below the admin candidates.) 'Cratship is a Big Deal. You will remember some controversial 'crat decisions in the past, so you might care to take a look at these applications. I'm planning to do that later today. [ Breaks out peashooter. ] Bishonen | talk10:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
good intentions
Yeah, I do sometimes weigh in a little aggressively. I'm primed for it at the moment, what with frightful squabbling about music theory. Tony09:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is another example of vague accusations which serve to harm someone's reputation.
The editor being 'challenged', has clearly declared 100% no relationship with the article subject's company. For Durova to then come in and post an IP/Diff and speculate about close proximity for a commute (implying what?) and essentially demand an explanation, is offensive.
Where is the good faith? The editor has already responded with a willingness to edit other articles.
Is there another way to read Durova's post, except to see an accusation of lying? This is the type of comments that I've been objecting to. They are harmful and they leave a permenant trail and cloud of suspicion over an editor.
I'm sure Durova means well, but I think, as an admin, she needs some counseling on how to keep her suspicions from being accusations.
I'd be interested to know why you dig out a post of mine from May and reply to it today? It'll have been of interest for maybe a day or two, back then—that's how often WP:ANI archives. Bishonen | talk21:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
Well, do I look like I know anything about copyright?
Bish, do you know anything about copyright? this seems quite blatant and deliberately mis-tagged to boot. I'm concerned as it links to the Taj Mahal article which I'd imagine is quite a high traffic article. Do I need to tell some image police, if so, where do they live? Would you mind taking a look? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter15:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably a question more suited for Legal. By uploading the image without Google's copyright, it's probably a violation. Though Google does 'sort of' offer a 'fair use' verbiage in their TERMS. I'd recommend asking at WP:COPY on the discussion page. Peace.Lsijohn15:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Do I look like I know anything about copyright? The general attitude of the uploader, as in this edit summary, seems a little newbieish, for sure. I suggest you ask User:Phaedriel, who it seems has already tried to help, compare the image page history. Bishonen | talk15:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC).
You mean you're not passionately in love with me? Well that just ruins my day. Anyways, thanks for your comments. I'm sure I deserve some of the blame, but the situation with Fatalis has gotten way out of hand. One editor has been blocked (luckily just temporarily), I've been threatened with a block, and several other editors have gotten beaten up just trying to clean up the mess caused by him. I've never been so frustrated with this project. But I'll get over it I'm sure! Orangemarlin16:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope so, I know the feeling. Sorry about the love thing, but my heart is pledged to El C. Uh, and to Geogre. And Giano. And Bunchofgrapes, and ... never mind, how did we even get on this subject? Bishonen | talk16:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC).
Is she allowed to be passionately in love with audacious fuckwits? its a JOKE, ok everyone? Peace.Lsijohn16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I think she can. And you know what they say if you have to explain it's a joke....LOL. BTW Bishonen, how do you keep all of these guys in line? You must be exhausted. :)Orangemarlin17:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
She doesn't.. but Zilla.. well thats another story.. /me L@@Ks around. (I had to explain it for 'others' .. I assumed the regulars here would understand). Peace.Lsijohn17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Non-free use disputed for Image:Virtue in danger.png
This file may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:Virtue in danger.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Talking to bots? I suggest you setup a pod-bot that auto-replies to the bot page, with quesitons for clarification and specificity. Peace.Lsijohn13:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Just, I think another softblock would be appropriate for this IP (142.176.46.3). Apparently, peopel found out that it was unblocked, and have started vandalising already. They've already recieved their only warning, and once again, I'd prefer not to just have the IP completely blocked, as I'm trying to contribute. Dan11:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Dan, KillerChihuahua has already blocked for another week, see the block log. But I'd advise you to make a request on WP:ANI as well. Mention my name and tell them I'm too stupid about IPs to dare block for more than a week (and Killer in her turn may simply be going by the way I did it, poor fool). If somebody a bit brighter checks out what kind of IP it is, it may turn out to be perfectly feasible to block it for six months or something, who knows. Best, Bishonen | talk13:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC).
Ah, yes. I see the block now. Didn't think to check the logs, only bothered to look at the talk page. I think I will bring it up on AN/I at some point, because I know for a fact that when the block expires they'll just start vandalizing again. Thanks for the advice, and sorry to bother you. Dan13:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Barbaro family article
Hi Bishonen! Barbaro family -- ran across this one in my random article review. A quick look at the conflict shows a "newby" with serious attachment issues standing against a "if it is not on Google, it does not exist" crowd. As my Italian/Venetian history is limited, and I don't have Italian to read the newby's presented source, perhaps you could pass this one off to some of your more "urbane" literate friends. Although the "computer-only" types might include an admin(?), a warning from you (or another conflict resolution type admin) about courtesy to newcomers and helpful editing might be useful. Best............... WBardwin03:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I was just going to but some idiot has deleted my wonderous image Palazzo_Barbarigo.gif which would have been a good start, I have better things to do with my time than keep rifling family albums to find images that idiots keep deleting! Giano10:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course I'm sure, I remebering climbing on some overweight American in the vaporetto trying to get the shot - If Wikipedia is so careless of my images it can do withoput them - or get them back itself. I am very displeased indeed! Giano10:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Here I am even starting the page with the picture in [10] - what am I suposed to do guard each page like I own it 24 hours a day - what on earth are the admins doing (as if I did not know) they are supposed to take care of these things leaving me free to write - not charge about trying to track down photographic masterpeices that I already upload once. Giano10:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Nowadays you get a warning (from a bot) that your image is under threat, but I don't think it worked that way in 2005. Bishonen | talk10:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC).
I don't care about 2005 - bugger bots and bugger 2005 - the fool who deleted it can go and get it back, he should be de-sysoped and banned for life. 10:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
But W ... !
But W ... ! You're killing me here, look at that talkpage! Congratulations on being able to get your head round it, because I sure can't. Probably one newbie is in good faith, but which one? It's all dissolving into schoolkids playing games, and I can never tell which one is talking. If they're editing from school, I wouldn't be surprised if different kids come in on the same IP sometimes, as well as the same kid coming in on different IPs. The worst part is how none of them use a name account. :-( Giano, thank you, I see you've made a start! Bishonen | talk14:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC).
I suspect this is an Italian version of the Arbuthnots - God help us. The Barbaros were a noble family of Venice but not as the article suggests the most famous the Dandolo, the Foscari or the Badoer and many others were more influential. I have made the suggestion for a solution but i suspect there will be lot more shouting yet. I think this is an American student of Italian extraction after some aristocratic links with the old country - I see Hannah has just passed into glory (thank you to those few who voted) but it is a pity these admins are not busying themselves trying to find my picture. Giano14:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
My!..........I don't suppose my note started it all, but sorry to bring you and Giano into this. It doesn't seem likely that reason will win out with this newby. I hope the article ultimately survives, since I remember a few of the Barbaro names from history classes. Thanks for keeping me posted. Best to you both. WBardwin09:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Tendrils winding everywhere-----it's like looking at a motor accident. He seems to be an ambitious soul (or perhaps an ambitious multiple personality)? AGF or not, I was a little naive in my original reading! Thanks for all your efforts. WBardwin10:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I was a little taken aback to see this edit of yours in response to a complaint on ANI. Offering an opinion based solely on the complaint itself isn't that likely to be of help. There are many invalid and self-interested complaints on ANI, and, well, the people who did look up the context of this one seem to have thought it one of them. Perhaps you would consider using the ANI time that you have for fewer, but better-researched, comments? I hope you won't be offended, but take this comment of mine in the benevolent spirit in which I intend it. Bishonen | talk13:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC).
I did make it clear that I didn't actually look into it... If I comment on something without having done the research to have a fully informed opinion I'll always be intellectually honest about that. I can see your point and I'll limit my "uninformed" comments. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Why did you say that?
Why did you say that I am unwilling to engage in the discussion? I don't understand that, but I want to change my behavior if it somehow led you to an invalid conclusion. I am eager to discuss proposed changes to the article. I have been accused of various things on the talk page, none of them fair, and that's unfortunately.
What I want is for the article to be improved and to become neutral, something it clearly is not at the moment.--Jimbo Wales19:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
While on the subject - thank you so much for asking me to help out, I must return the favour some time, in fact I think I will. Here [11] at Balti dynasty I am not convinved theat Prince Vitus of America's mother is of quite such descent. Thought you might like to sort it - nice family the Baltis! Giano17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Pray don't mention it. I'm afraid just at present I'm a little too busy communing with wiki-aristocracy such as the poster above Gustav. But have no fear, I will certainly get back to you. Sometime. Bishonen | talk17:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC).
Oh so I see, I get raving nutters, you get nice picures of birds and hamsterr - No that is not a hint I hate rodents in all forms. I think I may have myself crowned King of America, with my profile it would look just great on the stamps, my wife could learn to wave very regally we would be far better and more regal than the reigning House of Balti-Barbaro. I'll pop into Garrard on the way home and see if they do crowns in easy installments. Giano18:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you need to update your WP:AN post? I don't understand the nature of these IPs, so I dare only do emergency 24-hour blocks. I feel they should probably get taken out of action for much longer, and maybe collected under a range block, but such things are over my head. Bishonen | talk23:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC).
I do appreciate you.
Dinner break on me! Mmmmm, sushi!
Just signed off and then back on to try and shift IP's. But I was just able to edit and "undo". There has been a rash of people fighting, yet again, over BC/AD and BCE/CE on several articles on my watchlist. Thanks for watching, Bish. WBardwin08:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, passing the sushi on to F, I suppose it's really for him! Surely there was an arbitration case, with appropriate decisions, about the BC/AD and BCE/CE stuff? Do you know about that, or shall I look it up? Bishonen | talk08:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC).
Yes, I know the arbitration case and resulting policy/guidelines -- I even put my two cents worth (well, more like a quarter) into that discussion. But it is a frequent issue for new editors on pre-history/ancient history pages and can become heated on subjects which are close in date and topic to the birth of Christ. I reverted several times on the recently featured Ebionites. So -- go ahead and enjoy the fish! I won't tell "F". WBardwin08:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
What was the conclusion guys? - I just had someone change from CE/BCE to AD/BC - I thought we were all supposed to be PC so I reverted - was this correct? --Joopercoopers09:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
AFAIR, it's correct to not change the system an article has. Therefore you were correct to revert. Right, W? Bishonen | talk09:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC).
In practice, each article's system is based on both usage in the article and consensus by regular editors. The decision ended up in the Manual of Style [12], but some holdouts still contest it. WBardwin09:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Am I alone in finding Jimbo's intereventions here unacceptable? The captain of the ship appears to be forcing editorial direction 1.in opposition to consensus 2.towards a US POV bias 3.whilst disingenuously disclaiming his influence. I wasn't aware we were writing for a Rupert MurdochesqueRed top. :-( Joopercoopers11:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I quote myself, from Talk:Che Guevara: "Jimbo Wales is in fact no ordinary editor, and however much he may wish to temporarily assume that role, ordinariness isn't a quality to be donned at will." Bishonen | talk12:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC).
Eloquently put. I saw the discussion as a result of his post up the page. I think it's jawdroppingly ill-advised. Is this normal behaviour from him? Larry Sanger and the other wiki-bashers will have a field day. --Joopercoopers12:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I rather regret singling you out, as I now see that Sander Säde has been a more aggressive and trollish contributor to the AfC. What I had in mind with regard to you was especially "Please state the POV being pushed"–that's a bit ridiculous, and answers well in my opinion to Ghirlandajo's quote: "Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers". Also things like "the nomination is in bad faith," followed up by the non-responsive reply to Duja, where instead of a response to his valid point, he gets told about articles on "assumption" and "conclusion"...would you call that a good-faith reply? I'm not saying that you didn't also make good-faith comments in that AfD. But this was pretty nasty: "Ghirlandajo's remarks attest to the reality of the phenomenon". So was accusing Ghirlandajo of trolling and lying, "in hope to derail the discussion". You're really not in his head; avoid commenting on what he hopes. Bishonen | talk20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC).
If that question, indeed, has an obvious and easy-to-find answer, then you shouldn't have any trouble finding it.
On a metalevel, this question is an important indicator to tell apart actual POV problems from a mere inconvenient topic syndrome. If the question is not answerable, it's the second, and the POV claims can be discarded; if the question can be answered, the answer helps greatly in dealing with the underlying real problem.
As of Ghirlandajo's trolling, I believe this is obvious. On request, I can provide a detailed explanation. I can also back up the claim of lying; because this requires a bit more background knowledge, I'm not going to consider it obvious, and explain it here:
There is not now, nor has there been after 1945, a Waffen-SS monument in Estonia. There was a monument, the Monument of Lihula, that some people mistook for a monument for Waffen-SS; however, this was a mistake, and Ghirlandajo can be expected to reasonably know that. Furthermore, particularly irksome was his claim of such a non-existing monument's opening being temporally close to the opening of the Tallinn Synagogue — all three openings of Monument of Lihula were years before the Tallinn Synagogue was completed, and, again, Ghirlandajo can be expected to know this. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, none of the three openings of Monument of Lihula was attended by a current prime minister of Estonia, but I could excuse him not knowing that.
Constructing artificial connections and proximities is a common feature in Ghirlandajo's behaviour. I'm sure you recall (or if you don't, you can recheck the deleted RFC) his assertions that the whole Estonian community of Wikipedia is "based in Tartu", "same dorm", or "same computer lab". This is wrong, and if he actually read the RFCU he's referred to (and I'd say it's reasonable to expect he did), then he can be expected to know the nonfactualness. There was also that artificial proximity to some sort of WWII-era anniversary; I have forgotten which one it was, but it was some sort of German army's attack. First, he claimed that the RFC was filed on that day; when caught on lie, he claimed that it "became valid" on that day, specifically attributing it to you. Both are invalid: I maintain that the RFC has been valid since the first day, which was several days before Ghirlandajo's claimed attack anniversary; and my understanding is that you maintain that the RFC never become valid. I also remember checking that you never claimed that the RFC became valid on this day; alas, I can not recheck it now. Of course, he never apologised for any of these lies, nor did he bother to retract any of them — even when replacing one with another.
I may not have electrodes in his head, but I have been active on Usenet for more than a decade, studied crackpots (from a mathematical perspective) half that long, and I believe I can classify Ghirlandajo's behaviour rather precisely, and even provide satisfactory explanations for some of his weird reasonings.
As of response to Duja, I was commenting on his remark of assuming good faith. Assuming can be done in absence of evidence. I have gathered enough evidence to not need to have assumptions on how good Ghirlandajo's faith is; I now know how good it is. It is rather bad, most of the time. Digwuren14:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
My, my, I poddle on by for my (now customary) daily dose of chipmunk, and what do I find? The 'munk's been usurped by a squirrel. A freakin' squirel! A grey squirrel at that!! We can all see the dirty rotten swizz we've been dealt today and if it weren't for Bishzilla's utterly terrifying powers, I'd complain. Yours, Disgusted of Digbeth19:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
But he's such a kawaii squirrel! Did you notice the time the chip of the day was a rabbit? And speaking of poddling and the 'Zilla, have you seen her young sock Bishapod the fishapod? Irritating little fellow... the unmaternal Bishzilla has taken to calling him "Stupid". I think she's beginning to see what a responsibility an Alternative Account can be... chortle. Bishonen | talk20:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC).
I had noticed Bishapod and ignored the rabbit looks away disdainfully but somehow the little fishapod eluded me, can't think why :) Indeed, an alternative account is no small potatoes ;) Disgusted of Digbeth20:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just getting on my plane <weep> see you tonight, tomorrow or whenever. I may be in mourning for some time <sigh> so may not be editing with my customary panache for a day or so <sounds of exited squeeking and chipmunk noises from #wikiadmins> So I leave you all with a caption competition - no wise cracks as to who I may have put in the hole allowed. Have a nice day! Giano06:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I still think Mother Superior's wrong, the arboretum would be a much better place for this jacuzzi. Alf
"I don't understand, what has Millais done with my legs?! Surely this can't all be me under here?" "Shut up and lift your skirt, I've got another shovelful for the pile" Yomanganitalk14:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If you're sure those handsome devils Giano and Geogre are hiring out as pool boys, I don't mind how long I have to spend constructing this swimming pool. Can we have a waterfall and a slide, Sister? Bishonen | talk15:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC).
Hurry, Dear Sister. I beseech thee. The Good Doctor will give me a Neck tonight if we can but find a good one before Nightfall. And Pray for Lightning! --Justanother16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Goddamn it Agatha, I know he's a "hottie", but could you stop ogling the painter for five fucking minutes and give me a hand? This stack of dead babies isn't going to bury itself, you know. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure this is where you lost your keys, Sister? Perhaps the metal detector was just beeping on that quarter we found an hour ago...--SGTTex17:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I apologise for my incorrect reversion of the article in question, I am a VERY new user and I am attempting to start by doing some good by using Lupins vandal reversal tool. However I was too quick on the revert button (I didn't realise the page I was reverting was a talk page!!!). The reason I blanked the previous comment on my talk page was because I was at school when I received the message, and I couldn't post a reply on this talk page due to the over restrictive filters at school. Once again I apologise.Andrew McArdle15:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The mourning dove has returned, dear Raul such a thoughtful touch this morning, always such a nice boy (Italian I expect)
I see I have been allowed to remain here - I should hope you are very sorry Mr McArdle, I was posting on this page when you were in elementary school, but because I have just had a three hour flight followed by a Solemn High Mass, inspected the state of few relations, and now have time to kick my shoes off on a hotel bed with a bottle of wine, on this occasion I will overlook your revert. Don't do it again! Now what else has been happening today. Giano18:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Mourning Dove at a thistle feeder.
Interesting coincidence, I just uploaded 7 shots of Mourning Doves and find someone has just posted another photo of one here. Peace.Lsijohn13:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have seconded a motion to unblock early. You would have my support in doing so, although I have not yet had occaision to overturn another admins block. It is being discussed on DreamGuy's talk page, and at the blocking admins page as well. Best regards to you Bish! Hamster Sandwich21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I just posted it on ANI, please weigh in there! Thanks for your support, but I don't feel I'm the right person to unblock DG, as I explain on ANI. I hope somebody else does soon. Bishonen | talk21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC).
For the record I do not get upset by comments made towards me on wikipedia. If you feel that I have, those feelings are incorrect, and I wish to go on the record as saying that I do not have any personal issue with or feelings against DreamGuy in any way.
People will have different views on edit-warring. That was absolutely neither my intention nor, in my view a reflection of my actions in regards to Image:Daredevil46.jpg. DreamGuy placed a tag initially [14] on July 5th that said, This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen.
I assume as a part of his admin role Evilclown93 removed that tag as detailed here.
Dream Guy's reply (unknown to me at the time) was to suggest that Evilclown93 was a sock of the uploader.
It was only a few days later that I, also as a part of my admin role came across the speedy delete request and confronted with the above rationale, agreed with Evilclown93 views and removed the request stating in my edit notice: reverted edits by DreamGuy to that of Evilclown93 - who is not a "sock" but an admin. Pls use only correct speedy tags before replacing (if at all).
A further four days later, again just as a part of my admin role (see history of my admin work for that day) I came across the renewed speedy request, again with the above rationale. Confronted by no more information, I removed the speedy noting in the edit summary: Speedy deletion tag removed - awaiting a NPOV request that retains civility! You will note that I was talking about the content of the speedy deletion tag request of which I considered words such as the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... to be misplaced, no matter the frustration felt by Dream Guy. I then left the matter.
DreamGuy it appears renewed his request again and without alteration at which point Butseriouslyfolks removed it, it was renewed and then Butseriouslyfolks put it up at WP:FUR.
I came across it a day later and after I had left an adjusted canned message (which as most of you know includes a welcome to wikipedia line) on DreamGuy's talk page that also said, politely, Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing! My warning therefore was in relation to his edit-warring with three admins who did not agree with his method.
In relation to blocking ... Following the posting at WP:FUR - at which I note Dream Guy has commented, he still reverted Butseriouslyfolks' removal of the speedy tag, even after Butseriouslyfolks wrote in his edit summary, Let's discuss it first, please?. Finding another reversion, despite an ongoing request at WP:FUR and noting that DreamGuy has been warned before and blocked before, and most importantly that whatever any admin did DreamGuy would revert, I blocked him for a period which I considered at the time to be commensurate with his previous block and the continued reversions. To the extent that others consider that amount of time excessive I thank you, and particularly to Pascal.Tesson for his revision of the time line.
I note the comments above that in the opinion of an other editor Dream Guy is not the most polite individual on wikipedia, but he damned sure isn't the most acrid either and I agree totally. Whilst DreamGuy may not be able to accept that my message to him as detailed above was positive - I reiterate here again for all and sundry that I believe he is an otherwise good editor that was confronted by enormous frustration over the image he has been trying to delete. HOWEVER my job as I understand it is to assist in the protection of wikipedia. For those edits that relate to this matter - in my opinion DreamGuy needed to be blocked so that the process of deletion or otherwise of this image could be dealt with, without having to battle his continuing nose thumbing at the Good Faith decisions being made - especially with regards listing the matter at WP:FUR.
I should end by also indicating that my becoming unavailable at the time I did had everything to do with it being 2.00am in the morning at my location (bed and pillow beckoned) and no other reasoning.
Again thank you all for your comments. Please let me know if anything at all needs further explaining.
With best wishes --VStalk02:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. The image name in the article had an extra dot in it—see it in your post above, between "Waddesdon" and "Staircase"? That's all it was. Typo. Bishonen | talk23:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC).
It is more than this, look at this version of the page [16] the pictures go , delete , come back, someone is playing silly buggers! and then llok here [17] (that is not one of mine though but I have used it a lot) Giano09:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use? How can a picture od a house illustrating that same house not be fair bloody use. Is it any wonder my temper failes me. Hopefully one of the above average admins that frequent this page will bring it right back at once. God in heaven! I suppose I shall have to become an admin myself sooner or later to instill some common sense into this place. Giano13:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Programming wish
Hi Bishonen! General question -- can you point me to the techies who recently allowed us more review on our watchlist? I have a "wish", as my watchlist grows and grows, to be able to sort the list by topic. I would like to be able to call up list A, B, or C - and review activity in those specific areas. Does this sound like others might find it useful too? If you know anyone who is doing programming in this area, please let me know. WBardwin23:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, W. You're supposed to request stuff like that at Wikipedia:Bugzilla. But... I don't quite know how to put this. Perhaps I've just been unlucky. But the fact is, I've taken away the impression that the developers like to give us nifty new features that they come up with themselves... but don't so much like fulfilling requests. At least, any requests that I've made (that's maybe like, uh, one), or that I know of that friends/wikiacquaintances have made, have just, well, been sucked into the Bugzilla and never heard of again. You never get a reply, or learn why your request isn't being entertained. At least that's my experience. It's been a while since I tried, so the nerds may have gotten more gracious, I don't know. Summary: apply at Bugzilla, but don't get your hopes up. Bishonen | talk23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the note -- no hurry about my stuff, usually anyway. I agree that "Bugzilla's" reputation is less than steller. I think I've put in two requests -- apparently into the ozone. I put the note above on your page, on User:JRM's (who I've not seen lately) talk and on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I thought if I spread the idea around, someone might notice. And I know people read your talk page, if only for a smile! As I approach 600 pages on my watch (I know --only 600!), I find I would just really like to look at topics in isolation. For example, lately I've started working on articles on the Canadian/American Fur trade, 1820-1840, and some more distantly related articles as well. If I could sort those into a minor watchlist, I could keep track of what is happening to my most recent efforts. I thought that it would be useful for articles relating to any Wiki-project people belong to as well. Do you personally see a use for this feature? Best.....WBardwin02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
People are actually talking about it on the Village pump! Some of the ideas move much further along than mine -- but....... We shall see. WBardwin05:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. There is really no hurry, just me trying to tweek the status quo as usual. Too bad about JRM. I always found him pleasant, helpful and knowledgable. But, sadly and increasingly, that seems to be the type of editor and administrator that ends up leaving Wikipedia. You have to wonder why. I hope something doesn't push you over the edge, Bishonen. But, then, you can always call up Bishzilla!! Best.............WBardwin01:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... well, I believe JRM left because the wiki time expenditure was messing up RL for him. That was my impression. He kept the faith. I'm the opposite, I have time (currently) but little faith. I don't know if you've noticed how much the project is tipping over right now, from the Indians to the Chiefs, as it were. Well, I dunno, it probably always seemed that way. But I'm disillusioned, yes. Illustrations: this so-called Featured article review of one of my FAs. And this more recent encounter with the Biography Assessment Drive. Not so much fun anymore. I stop putting my stuff on FAC, I protest, many people protest, Geogre protests all the time, but I don't think any of us are getting through. Bishonen | talk15:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC).
I'm sorry these creatures are hitting you hard. I find you to be an excellent writer and enjoy "your" articles, even if I know nothing about the topic. I've certainly noticed a more restrictive, argumentative environment since my extended absence at the turn of the year. Several things, including article assessment, frantic footnoting and increasingly authoritative templates, are getting under my skin as well. As a member of the biography project, I just placed a comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Assessment (Project is Subjective and Non-productive), but as the assessment trend is Wikipedia wide............? I presume that everyone is frantic to prove that Wikipedia is accurate and reliable in response to our periodic negative media exposure. But all of these efforts, IMO, are swinging far wide of the mark. I suspect there are many more moderate editors that would agree. How to find them is another matter. Hang in there! WBardwin19:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ice cream
A chocolate ice cream for one of our nicest administrators
Hi, Bishonen, I promised the monster that I would give you an ice cream if she returned my ice cream maker to me, and she very obligingly did so, damaging my hair rather badly in the process. (Thank goodness I have a hair straightener!) So, I'm keeping my promise, and offer you a chocolate ice cream. And while I'm here, thank you for all the good work you do around here. Although we don't seem to edit the same articles, I see a lot of the posts you make at admin noticeboards and at user talk pages which are on my watchlist. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)01:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Update: Graphic situation for Bishapod
Hi, Miranda! I wasn't thinking of a banner so much. More an animated version of the portrait on his page. I would love to have an animation where the 'pod moves his tail and flippers. If the movements can suggest he's swimming, that would be even better.
I mean, more like Bunchograpes' animated Bishzillas. They aren't banners, you know? Here are the animated Bishzillas:
Here's a piss poor effort to be struggling on with. He can't even swim properly, his tail goes one way and his feet go another. Yomanganitalk00:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Er... very nice, Yomangani. Thank you. Only... the poddie looks like he'd cross the Channel in about ten minutes with that incredibly forceful leg/flipper paddling. And looks a bit like a torpedo... Do you think you could, uh, impart a slightly gentler movement? Something like Bishzilla's scary blinking? (I'll take the sprinkles, yes, please.) Bishonen | talk12:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC).
Now approaching the limit of time scheduled for the animation of Bishapod from my life:
16 July 2007 up to 10am: Animate fishapods, 10-2pm: Find cure for cancer 2pm: Coffee...I won't bore you with the rest of the day, it's mostly Nobel prize winning stuff and skateboarding. Yomanganitalk13:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice nice Yomangani! Poddie swim! Now Yo-ma-ma animate proto-tetrapod-teddy stuffed toys, let roam free? Then we all have icecram lady's icecream! bishapodsplash!16:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC).
[Bishzilla gives great roar of despair, all little users whirl away in resulting tornados] DOWN PEST! Little Yomangani please excuse 'Zilla for creating El Maximo Stupido Sock! Go away Bishapod! ['Zilla slouches off to find out if there's any way to nuke existing pest account.] bishzillaROARR!!16:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC).
Bad Faith?
Hi Bishonen. I never accused User:DreamGuy of bad faith. Did you read the entry in AN3RR? I merely wanted to point out that he violated the 3RR (he is also a repeat offender of the rule) in two separate articles which I made edits to. I didn't remove any other User:DreamGuy's comments except for the ones in the entry itself, where they tried to compromise the evidence. I was quite sure that the situation was clearly apparent. On the other hand, you might want to look at my entries on their talk page (which they apparently blanked) and their entries on mine. See the difference? Could anything else be done? Thanks for your help. Best, aNubiSIII(T / C)13:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
What.. ? You certainly did. "remove vandalism by User:DreamGuy in their attempt to compromise information in entry " isn't an accusation of bad faith? [18]? See Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. " Just don't throw the word around, please, especially not in edit summaries, where it can't be removed. Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. As for "attempt to compromise information in entry "... do I have to spell it out? Read WP:3RR too, and you'll see that the 3RR rule is counted per article—you can't add up reverts to different articles.
Well, yes, I see the difference. DreamGuy is bluff and gruff and frequently rude, and that's regrettable. At the same time I'm not sure I'd prefer to get the kind of passive aggressive "advice" that you post on his page, especially after I'd asked you to stop. A matter of taste. As for DreamGuy blanking your posts from his page, no, nothing can be done about that, he's entitled to do it. How about you simply stop posting there? That would make everybody happy, it seems to me. He has asked you not to post, and you don't like the results of posting. Also, while I understand that your intentions are good, please make sure you avoid userspace harassment. Regards, Bishonen | talk14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC).
Biography Assessment Drive
I am sorry to hear you had a poor experience with the Biography Assessment Drive, and in lieu of your comments, input would be appreciated here for dealing with articles that have "limited" knowledge so that they get a different, if not, fairer consideration when it comes to assessment. --Ozgod15:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
(Cross-posted from my own talk page.) Hi Bishonen. I've addressed the issues over on the Bio talk page. Your articles have come into the midst of two terrible forces in current WikiProject Biography work: The (very objective) Charybdis of WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive, and the (very subjective) Scylla of the debate on what to do about the hated 11 Easy Steps. Charybdis has no time to be polite in assessing your work and see how you feel about it while Driving through more than 300,000 badly sorted bios. Scylla, meanwhile, is picking at the "Easy Steps" concept, and trying to figure out how to teach utterly uninitiated people how to make proper biographies. You should take neither of these things personally. Your biographies are well-written and researched, but there isn't room for a more elite system of assessment on Wikipedia, just room for better articles. Cheers, Yamara16:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Lights has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Cheers,Lights00:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks, Bishonen. I appreciate that that was a considerable effort on your part and thank for doing it and doing it so well.
I was going to clarify in my evidence section that Anynobody is now Anyeverybody and provide some helpful links as below but it would probably be more helpful if that was in your evidence area so people do not have to skip about (tra-la-la).
Yes, I suppose so. I kept having to go to the redirect to get the older contributions, and only about an ångström of the redirect link was visible under the image, so it would perhaps help. Also it would stop people from getting confused about when Anynobody started to edit. Done. Bishonen | talk21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC).
Misunderstanding?
Reading your evidence I couldn't help but notice you said that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother was uncertified. It really was certified: diff which is the main reason why I've felt deleting it was an error this entire time. Honestly if it had not been certified, I would have chalked it up to my inexperience and moved on.
If you have felt this since March that it wasn't, then our basic disagreement is based on a misunderstanding. I'm not saying you have to change your evidence, if you really think I've been screwing up then please keep most of it posted. In case this has been a huge misunderstanding, the golden rule (do unto others etc.) seems to apply. If I were in your shoes I'd like a chance to strike/remove the point about the RFC being uncertified before said editor posts direct evidence of my error.
To be clear, I'm not trying to talk you into changing your opinion nor do I expect anything from you. I don't enjoy pointing out mistakes, or possibly causing embarrassment which is why I'm posting this. Anynobody23:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
As the diffs in my evidence show, many knowledgeable admins and experienced users pointed out your misunderstanding of the RfC process and the 48-hour rule, even after I myself gave up trying to explain it to you. (That includes Daniel Bryant, the guy who moved the RfC to "approved.") But you always knew better. Feel free to go down that road yet again, Anynobody, but you won't be doing yourself any favor. Bishonen | talk10:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC).
You've actually never explained how the 48 hour rule applies when it was approved in just under 3 hours, are you starting the 48 hours from when Smee first came to you for help? Listed: 03:49, 8 March 2007 Approved: 06:50, 8 March 2007. Daniel Bryant didn't explain it to me either, he gave up after you left a note on his talk page,
diff, diff.
It's not that I claim to know better than anyone, the problem I have is that the reasons you cited for deleting it (insufficient attempt for two editors to discuss, and the 48 hour rule) don't make sense; Smee and myself did try to resolve the dispute before going the RfC route and the RfC I posted was uncertified for 2 hours and 59 minutes. Anynobody20:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I've explained amply and repeatedly; so have others; so does this. Do you recollect my last remark to you on this page in June? The one where I request you not to post on this page any more?Here it is. I accepted your previous post, because it seemed sort of fair that you'd want to comment on my evidence. But that doesn't mean I'm going to be drawn into arguing with you. No, no... been there...[starts to tear out her hair.] Don't post on my page any more, please.Bishonen | talk21:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC).
I see you have set aside part of your page to showcase my images...how cool is that!...not sure they are good enough to get so much attention though, but certainly appreciated. I made some adjustments to my page there, uploaded some more and will add more as I go through what I have.--MONGO13:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Can I please put a userbox on Bishapod's page that says, "Waiting for Bishzilla, Bishzilla will be arriving on (tomorrow's date)?" Please? Miranda23:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't take it the wrong way, but I really find that some of your statements display your lack of good faith. Why would you call someone condescending over as little as doubting ones judgment in choice of words when a simple point to the policy would have worked just as well without the attack like undertone? I really don't understand your attitude and I wish I could...--Alexia Death20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S: Sorry for not bringing my questions here before, instead of taking them up in the AfD. Im not attacking you, just trying to understand--Alexia Death20:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Spot Master Bates
If you don't know Stephen Duck, you maybe should. He was Robert Burns before Robert Burns, but they made a gentleman of him, and I found Leslie Stephens's own biography of him still hanging about in 2004. See, though, if you can spot the truly unfortunate name in the biography. (Poor lady.) Geogre13:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've now been accused of being uncivil because I disagree with the frantic footnote brigade! What a useful intimidation tactic! I should probably post the achievement on my talk page. However, this may be a way to get other more moderate souls involved in a discussion. If you, and others reading this page, would like to chime in, the issue came up on Talk:Apache and continues with my response to User talk:Corvus coronoides:Your "accusation". It may be futile, but I've always liked tilting at windmills. Best.........WBardwin19:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wanna tilt at windmills? Say that you are a Scientologist and try to edit Scientology-series articles to conform to core policies here. That is the Master's Series of Quixotic Editing. --Justanother20:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Confess your sins and repent, (and find a good mentor for 3 months) and all will be forgiven. But you simply must stop your unreasonable demands that your opposition actually follow policy/guidelines. That's simply an outlandish and incivil demand. Peace.Lsijohn21:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like an old acquaintance of yours is reading this page, W.[19] Pity he didn't focus a bit more on the matter of fact, though (=the inline cites). Bishonen | talk22:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC).
Save this goat!
someone wants to delete one of my goats (the one above in fact), what can we do, how do we write a fair use rationale. I have just removed the warning template as a start that should fox them for a couple of days. Giano18:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Good evening Giano, Bishonen, 'las & 'pods tips hat exactly what is it the image is showing, is it a poster, a donations packet that gets posted through your door or what. I could do a thingy for it if I knew that and from whence it came.--Alfmelmac20:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Err ... I hate to be a party pooper, but we can't use fair use images in user space. Not even to illustrate an appeal to write a fair use justification for that fair use image. :-{ --AnonEMouse(squeak)20:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Poop no more, not here at least Anon, and we shall have the image back, this is a thing that was posted through my door in W8 (that is a part of London for the benefit of those across the pond) It is all a very sad story - and you Anon should have more sympathy for the starving millions whose plight has been made worse by being sent goats that are now eating what little greenery they enjoyed. Giano20:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Sued by Christian Aid - no. In trouble with people who go around enforcing the fair use guidelines - yes. Betacommand, Abu badali, those sorts. But I guess I'll let you deal with that, I've said my piece. I'm not generally one of the rule enforcers, my connection is more usually being one of those that drops fair-use text onto questioned images. This particular one is tough, because it isn't really discussed in the article in question. Best of luck to you. --AnonEMouse(squeak)21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If Betacommand wants another run in with me he is welcome to try, I have not had the pleasure of Mr Badali, in fact I have never heard of him. So I'm not hugely concerned. Now more to the point how do we save these unfortunate goats, the Christians and the starving millions all in one big swoop. I cannot beleive that using a Christian Aid promotion to describe the work of Christian Aid can be against anyone's principles - even Mr Badali's. Giano21:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
As chairman of the Bipartisan Free Range Goat League, I object to this so-called "Fair Use" of goats. These people treat them like animals! That's hardly fair. Friday(talk)21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, and no where in that re-cycling does it mention the obvious - or are all of the starving millions vegetarians? In which case the goats eating all the greenery will be even less beneficial. Giano21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, the real reason I dropped in was to mention that User:DreamGuy seems to be in trouble again. WP:ANI#User:DreamGuy Want to check it out? Or not - I know you're not his mother, but I wanted to notify you and give you the chance to help out if you wanted. --AnonEMouse(squeak)20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Mouse. I think I give up, it's looking kind of hopeless. :-( Maybe I'll feel differently tomorrow. It's very late here. Bishonen | talk23:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC).
It seems to be the same old accusations by the same people who start up an ANI thread every few weeks and go nowhere. Most of them can't pull things together to stop acting like people irrationally out for blood to get taken seriously. Although of course it doesn't stop them from rushing off to take their edit wars to fresh new articles. DreamGuy06:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, though, one thing would be nice...User:Dicklyon (and some others too, but mostly Dicklyon) insists upon putting harassing comments on my talk page over and over and over despite being told he was not allowed to post there and even after another admin (the bad one I had asked you for help with in the past, User:Arthur Rubin, who abused his position to try to prevail in edit wars and you and some others warned) told him I was right (as well as other people on the ANI thread) that posting to my talk page is harassment when it's clearly done with those intents in mind. It'd be nice if you could let him know that this is serious and that he can't post there. DreamGuy21:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. Why is DreamGuy saying "same people who start up an ANI thread every few weeks" in reference to me? The only thing I've ever done with him before is to report his article destruction as vandalism. And why does he think my comments on his talk page are harassing? He doesn't even read them, apparently. Hopefully you will. I don't recall anyone saying he was right, so if you figure out what he is referring to, do let me know. Is it true that I should not talk to him via his talk page when I have something to say? And what is your relationship in support of him? Dicklyon23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
My "relationship in support"? Excuse me? I'm going to AGF that you didn't mean that quite the way it sounds. Meanwhile, I too think your comments on his talk page are harassing. Jumping in with this sarcastic comment in a discussion you haven't been involved in is mere trolling, IMO. Obviously your comment "to Clpo 13" was really aimed at inflaming DreamGuy (or why post a comment to another editor on his page?). And don't put back stuff on his page that he removes. This included a warning template from IPSOS which was totally unsuitable for posting on a long-time contributor in the first place. I would have removed it too, if I'd been him. It's not for you to restore stuff "to give another chance to read our comments"—when he removes something it's taken as proof presumptive that he has read it (even if he says he hasn't). If I were you, I would oblige him and leave him alone on his page. Think about it: have you honestly seen any good effects that those types of comments you make to him are having? So far? Bishonen | talk23:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC).
My question was sincere. I'm just wondering why AnonEMouse and DreamGuy are asking you to intercede, and wondering if there's some history that I should know about. If there's not, just say so. And yes, I got sarcastic on that one; but I was NOT uninvolved in that interaction. I'll take your point that nothing good is likely to come of me trying to talk there. Dicklyon00:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Was my question "And what is your relationship in support of him?" really "bloody rude"? Or maybe just a bit indelicate? Where are you coming from on this reaction? Dicklyon17:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
"Indelicate?" Oh, am I supposed to have some discreditable relationship with DreamGuy? Gee, you sound worse every time you open your mouth. My reaction was also to the peremptory order-giving of your next post. "If there is not, just say so." If you think that kind of interrogation is acceptable, you're living in a bad place. Please just quit it while you're still ahead, for very small values of ahead. Bishonen | talk18:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
(inindent) Personally, I have a high level of respect for Bishonen, and have seen several times when she has been able to save DreamGuy from self destruction. That doesn't necessarily mean I think he's right or you're wrong, it's not a zero sum game. I'm less interested in who "wins" and who "loses" and more in keeping people rather than driving them away. I've been in a small conflict or two with DreamGuy myself, so I didn't think I'm the best person to intervene. --AnonEMouse(squeak)00:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
If by "self destruction" you mean attempts by problem editors to try to scapegoat me and harass the beejesus out of me. DreamGuy20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Smile
Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
When I saw this, I was reminded of Kitty. Maybe when El_C gets back, someone should put a disclaimer which reads: "not to be confused with Oscar the Cat." :-P Happy editing. Miranda00:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can, you may want to watch this article. Someone (User:Standardname) has been making major edits for a week or so (see page history on 500 eidts per page, it's a sea of their edits), and I tried to follow them best I could. Other than a couple minor things I fixed along the way they seemed alright, but then today anything and everything about the diagnosis being controversial was removed, the edit comments said that it was not controversial because the DSM said it was real (well, yeah, it said it was real this whole time and was controversial, and in the past DSM said homosexuality was a disorder, etc., so obviously listing there doesn't mean it's not a controversial diagnosis), along with some edits that seemed to go way beyond POV-pushing to just unintelligible. I reverted back to an old version (just the edits today that gutted the controversy section, not this person's other edits), and left a message on their talk page, to which they responded that their intent to revert back to their version. DreamGuy23:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, DreamGuy. This new editor obviously doesn't have a grasp of our policies and practices yet. Considering this, and the overall frankness of their agenda, how about you drop a line on User:Shell Kinney? Meanwhile, I've posted a note on Standardname's talkpage. Bishonen | talk23:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC).
Hrm. Missed the spamming bit. Trying to find what that was all about and will give her a heads up. Thanks. DreamGuy06:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You might be able to make a judment here
Hi, Bishonen. I've just seen Special:Contributions/81.178.224.84. I don't know much about the case, but I did follow the ArbCom case a little bit, and I think Worldtraveller scrambled his password. If that's the case, he wouldn't be able to make deletion requests while logged on. I think it's quite natural that an admin who sees an anon putting deletion requests on a whole pile of pages would use rollback, but this particular case may be genuine. I think you were friendly with him, so you might be able to make a judgment as to whether or not those edits really did come from him. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)13:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hej Bish, thanks for the note. Yes, thislot was what I was hoping to have deleted. I listed the redirects at WP:RFD - the listing is still there but Kukini reverted the addition of rfd tags on the redirects themselves thinking it might be a vandal. Hej då - 81.178.224.8417:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. Man, talk about cross-namespace redirects—I came >this< close to deleting large tracts of the Signpost itself. A pretty pickle that would have been. World... ? This was a really, really sad job. :-( Bishonen | talk18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC).
OK don't worry I tracked it down for myself - yet another highly respected member of the team bites the dust. Does anyone care <sigh> Giano20:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I care, but I don't know there's anything more to be done. Even the ArbCom officially asked Worldtraveller to resume contributing, based on my workshop proposal, but I'm afraid there's no enforcement provision. Newyorkbrad16:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
I've responded to your questions (under oppose) and your comments (under discussion). Thanks for taking them in to consideration, GiggyUCP23:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
That was quite easy, yeah. Unfortunately so. I'm sorry it went like this. Bishzilla appreciated your comments at her RFA..! But I feel strongly about the issues involved, so I didn't have a lot of choice. Bishonen | talk00:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC).
Hi Bishzilla! I acknowledge you not thinking I'm ready for adminship yet, and not wanting a back-and-forth on the RfA, but I'd really like feedback on how to improve in this regard. So if you were to discuss it here I'd be more then happy too. GiggyUCP00:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giggy! Puny 'shonen post pile of new feedback here. 'Zilla famous for gumption, helpfulness, sweet temper, atomic deathray, and sex. Weenie 'shonen famous for only one thing: meanness. :-( bishzillaROARR!!09:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC).
Thanks sexy Zilla! Maybe if you use your deathray on Shonen :P Actually, don't, the advice is all good, and I'll be sure to take it on board :) GiggyUCP23:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, I see that you have been talking (unofficial mediation?) with StandardName and the other people involved with the DID page. I don't normally edit that page, but I am part of the Wikiproject Psychology, and he added this material to the project talk page. I removed that, and left a note on his user page that it was excessive (which he has subsequently deleted). I also noted that, having reviewed the edits StandardName has made to the DID page (since he brought it up on the project talk page), that StandardName is engaged in POV pushing. Wholesale removal of sections of the article is certainly no way to make it more NPOV. It just substitutes an unacknowledged POV for an acknowledged debate. I don't think that DreamGuy is dealing with things in the most constructive manner possible, but that's another matter. As part of the Wikiproject Psychology, let me know if I can help (at least provide an outside expert perspective, since my research is not in DID, but rather synesthesia), but it looks to me like StandardName is on his way to getting blocked here. Edhubbard07:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping me informed, Ed. Yeah, DreamGuy alerted me to the problem. I'm flattered if my warnings to the user sounded like mediation, lol... I don't really think I'm suited for that role, and I'll be more than happy to leave him to Shell Kinney, who already indefblocked him once[20] and who has obviously been talking with him — I would guess by e-mail — a good deal more than I have. I agree that it looks like SN is spoiling for another indefinite block, this time one that sticks. Meanwhile, please don't restore any posts he removes from his talkpage! I know how annoying that is, and his claim to be removing yours as personal attacks is ridiculouos, but the fact remains that he's entitled to remove posts, and you're not supposed to put them back. His blanking them shows he read them, and you don't get to insist on keeping them on his page. I would advise you instead to use very clear edit summaries for any further posts you make there (not that I see any pressing need for any more), that stand out when people check the history, and that immediately tell them what your post was about. In a few extreme cases, I've even used summaries like "Yet another attempt to make the user see reason, I expect it to be blanked, please read it, admins!" :-) Bishonen | talk09:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the reply. I missed it earlier. I don't think that I need to interact with SN any more, since he did not re-add his comments to the Psych Wikiproj page. I did make sure that I left something on the proejct page letting people know that he attempted to canvass (I just saw Shell's note on SN's talk page). Personally, I think his canvassing on the project page will probably backfire, if it gets any response at all. Edhubbard17:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks both of you for noticing the POV-pushing going on on the article, but be aware that StandardName has simply now recruited some of the other longstanding POV-pushers to reinstate the exact same edits we all agree were horrible. If you could please watch the article some more it'd be helpful to undo this nonsense when it happens and give similar warnings to others reverting to the bad version for the guy. DreamGuy16:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Bishonen, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, GiggyUCP04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
your eighth FAC
Hello... at WT:FAC you wrote:"...after I'd very cheerfully nominated seven articles on FAC and had them featured, I found the eighth process so abrasive that it's left me with zero inclination for any number nine."
Please forgive me if this is bringing up old & unpleasant detritus, but I am very interested in seeing how the offending FAC played out... would you mind giving me a link? Thanks Ling.Nut10:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear me! There's acres of whitespace between the chipmunks and the Byrå on my screen. The Byrå's not just an image, it's my archives, so I certainly don't want it hidden. What resolution are you viewing the page at? Could you show me what it would take to make it right for your screen, by editing the chippies — and anything else involved — so they don't overlap? I'd appreciate it. (Though possibly revert it, if it looks absurdly small on mine...! :-P ) I'll e-mail you about the other thing, as I don't indeed want to re-start any old unpleasantness on my page. Bishonen | talk18:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC).
Desert chippy
Here's an image of a chipmunk from my neck of the woods! Sorry that it is not my photograph, but I have a few pics around here somewhere. Best........WBardwin20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Aw, cute! Pensive! Featured Chip now featured at top of page until such time as El C's chips come after it with their baseball bats! Bishonen | talk11:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
No...........don't hurt the Hopi chipmunk. (It wouldn't be worth it anyway, as they are so little that one would be just an appetizer. Hmmmmm - but maybe well pounded and stuffed with pinenuts and onions?) Would Bishzilla approve? Thanks for the featured status, Bishonen. WBardwin23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, David. I see it's indeed a single purpose account, and a recent one. Many (not all) such accounts are socks, yes, but I have to assume good faith. And as far as deleting the contributions, my big problem is exactly what you say: there are probably many socks editing the article and the talkpage. If I delete the contributions of one, I ought to take an overview and make some sort of decision as to which contributors are socks, and delete everything they do. I'm not versed enough in the subject, or acquainted enough with the accounts regularly editing in the field, to undertake that. (I'm frankly not acquainted with them at all.) The talkpage naming discussion is indeed operating under the law of diminishing returns, especially now that the request for move and the consequent poll have established consensus. That's why I thought the talkpage as such ought to be freed up for more constructive kinds of discussion. (Though it's obviously fair enough that people choose to use some space discussing my decision immediately below it on the page — I think that has to be allowed for.) You probably know much more than I do about the specific likelihoods of socking at Kiev and its talkpage. If your suspicion are concrete enough, I encourage you to take them to the checkusers. Jointly wiith some other contributors, perhaps? Note that you have to tell CheckUser not only about suspected socks, but also what sock puppeteers you suspect — see the CheckUser page instructions. Bishonen | talk09:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC).
Beached
Hi, if you, Giano, or Geogre, or any of the 'zillas and 'pods are about, would you mind taking a look over Dover Beach, with particular respect to the "caveat section" - the talk page is involved and in some places is a bit hard work. Apparently I'm repressing the truth censoring against the US's constitution or something :s --Alfmelmac18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
On name-calling
I'm calling them like I see them. This editor is a problem. He is arrogant, POV-pushing, and makes no real contributions other than to stir up trouble. After 5, count them 5 arbitrations being called on this guy in the past 12 months, I am uncertain as to how it is that he is still here.
If you are intent on reprimanding anyone, trying doing a little research on the edit comments, user comments, user logs, and Talk pages for which this editor is responsible. In addition to finding that he is exactly who I say he is, you will find that he regularly edits and blanks his own Talk page to cast himself in a positive light, while being abusive and condescending to others. --DashaKat19:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
If I'm "intent on reprimanding anyone"? Don't post insulting rubbish on this page if you don't mind. How you "see" fellow editors doesn't trump official policy, and, no, you actually don't get to call users asses or certified imbeciles no matter how you see them. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you refer to anybody again in remotely those kinds of terms, I won't reprimand you, I'll block you. As for 5 arbitrations "being called", please don't pollute my page with such abysmal logic. Anybody can "call" an arbitration on anybody. How many RFARs have been opened? How many have ended in any sanction or reprimand? Bah. Bishonen | talk20:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC).
Philip II of Macedon sent a message to Sparta, stating: "If I win this war, you will be slaves forever." The Spartans sent back a one word reply: "If." El_C23:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Tis interesting, though I suppose not particularly surprising, to learn that a politically-hostile editor is combing through my logs trying to find damning evidence, but Illyrians — come on! At least find something plausible! El_C00:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I've got some wikilove to share
Mykola Burachek (1871 - 1942), "The broad Dnieper roars and moans" (1941). Oil on canvas.
Hey Bish! I've got so much Wikipedia:WikiLove today, and totally unexpectedly, that I've got to share some and pass it on.
This gift made me think about an excellent post-impressionist painting and I would like to pass it on for your viewing pleasure. Please enjoy one of my favorite works by this great Ukrainian artist who is undeservingly little known abroad.
Here you will find this image juxtaposed along with my own wiki-portrait. I quite like how they go together.
I have no interest in "winding him up"- I was only making a suitable comment. If he cannot engage with people on a talk page- what hope is there that he will behave if he returns? Astrotrain11:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you were only doing, all I'm asking you to do from now on is respect his perfectly polite request. Please. Bishonen | talk11:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC).
It seems like he is trying to stop people who may object to his block being lifted from making their voices heard. Astrotrain13:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, censorship, is it? Vintagekits can only post on his own talkpage. Are you under the impression that Vintagekits' talkpage is the only place you can post? Please take your comment to Sir Fozzie or Alison or something, if you think it too insightful to lose. I note that you didn't actually make any argument, though, beyond registering agreement with another user. You had no input in the discussion. You were treating it like a vote. It's not a vote. Bishonen | talk13:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC).
Brilliant Prose Competition
And him telling me to read WP:DICK the first time I ever made a comment to him isn't trolling? He does this regularly to users in the first comment he ever makes to them. IPSOS (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
"But mommy, he threw sand at me first!" That makes it OK? Maybe if you're four. I was suggesting you might like to hold yourself to a higher standard than deliberate trolling and provocation. Please think about it. Please don't post on DreamGuy's page any more. And, this was my big point: please don't post newbie templates on any experienced editor again. See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace: "if the template's tone isn't appropriate, don't use the template." And, well, just see common sense. Please. Bishonen | talk10:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
I'll try to find the time to do as you request. Even though you, who haven't had anything remotely responsive to say to my comments on your bullshit, are in a very, very, very, very poor and unbecoming position for requesting it. You are the only person whose behaviour you're guaranteed to be able to change, you know. If you're not prepared to try, it's hardly worth setting yourself up as a specialist in deportment and courtesy. Bishonen | talk15:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
You've been defending someone who is purposely abusive, uncivil and rude to other users. You've just lost any respect I might have had for you. You're an enabler. IPSOS (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I hope you'll understand if I don't give your request top priority. I really am a little busy today. Btw, I agree with you about the placing of the "See also" section. Though I have trouble working up any passion about it either way. Why does either of you care so much? Personally, I try to structure articles so that a "See also" section won't be needed at all. I know Raul654, the Featured Articles director, happens to agree with me in disliking it. As for that hypothetical might-have-had respect, if you ever do find it, put it where the sun don't shine. Bishonen | talk17:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
Wait a moment. This massive exchange of weapons is over the placing of the
"See also" section? Not money, or religion, or politics, or living people, but the order of appendices in article layout? Wow. I know where this goes. --AnonEMouse(squeak)17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, there you are, Mouse, darling. I've been thinking about that very perceptive question Dicklyon asked above: "I'm just wondering why AnonEMouse and DreamGuy are asking you to intercede, and wondering if there's some history that I should know about." The man must have uncanny intuition! Or else we've been very obvious, you and I... well, *I* probably have... it's so difficult to hide my feelings for you! I think we might as well come clean, you and I, about our love, and our little love-pledge DreamGuy. Let the world know! See if I care! My heart is already broken. It broke on the dark and stormy night I was forced to leave my sweet little one on the steps of the orphanage all those years ago. After that night, and that storm, I had to become strong, or I would have died of misery! Oh my baby! That 's my relationship in support of him! Shout it from the rooftops! Nay, post it on ANI! Bishonen | talk20:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC).
Wow, that's so much more interesting that even I could have imagined. Thanks for coming clean! Now kick the bastard out and make him get a job. Dicklyon20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Speechless over days! Good job Bishonen! (And thanks for the moments of high comedy, I've needed it!) SirFozzie17:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
And she seems to have taken my advice. DreamGuy says he's moving out; half way across the country even. Dicklyon17:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
(Thank you, Sir Fozzie. I saw something about that — don't get burnout!) Dearest Mouse! I do know your modest, retiring nature — who better? But when you wrote "You're not his mother", it was like a ... Sign! Or a challenge, even. I Sensed that you were wondering if I'd dare to respond, with matronly dignity: Oh Yes I Am! And yes, I did! And I feel better for it! My pathetic made-up excuses for supporting DreamGuy never seemed to fool anybody, anyway. I mean, trying to stop people from harassing him on his page merely because I always try to stop anybody being harassed on their page? People laughed at that one. With some justice. And as for pretending to be against all out-of-policy blocks by trigger-happy admins, well. "Embarrassing" and "transparent" are the words for that excuse for posting bad blocks of DreamGuy on ANI.[21] I knew it, really. Anyway, the truth is out. And I like the feeling! I couldn't go on living a lie. Several lies, actually... watch this space for sensational revelations about my relationship with dear Giano, coming real soon. And then... hmmm... [ /me thumbs thoughtfully through stack of index cards ] ... User:El C, I think. Or the one where I'm reunited with my dear little daughter and her icecream machine. That's definitely the most touching story you ever heard. Maybe I should complement the chipmunk, bird, and lake photos of the day with the It was a dark and stormy night story of the day, what do you think? ... Mouse? Are you there...? Bishonen | talk20:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC).
Mummy, dearest. I hope you're not going to reveal the identity of my father. I'd find it so humiliating if people found out about my relationship to that cad, that bounder, who exposed you to a life of misery and me to one of poverty. And I'm a little bit worried (remember that growing up in an orphanage made me insecure) that you don't make it clear if the "touching" thing was being reunited with me, or being reunited with my ice cream machine. ElinorD(talk)14:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the frank monster, darling. She may have a heart of gold somewhere in there, but she knows nothing about lip-service tact. As for revealing the identity of your father [ checks hastily through index cards ] ...ah, yes. No, of course I won't. I have enough to do trying to make up with my father, who chased me out into the storm on that terrible night, shouting imprecations at me for sullying the unspotted honour of the Geogres... oops! Bishonen | talk15:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC).
Fun story. But it almost sounds like you think I was harassing DreamGuy, or that he shouldn't be punished for his behavior. I'm still wondering what that's about. But I'll settle for fiction, I guess. Dicklyon22:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
[Blinks ] It almost sounds like I think DreamGuy shouldn't be punished for his behavior? I¨'m sorry to hear it. I always try to sound like I definitely don't think any editors should be "punished for their behavior." Wow, did you really say that? We don't do punish. Even blocks are for prevention, not punishment. Please see WP:BLOCK. Official policy. The Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee sometimes hands out sanctions at the end of a case, up to and including WP:BANs. These sanctions are officially known as "remedies". Their purpose is to protect the project from undesirable actions. Not to punish past behavior. The word "punish" is never used in arbitration, never used by admins, never countenanced by the community. Even if an editor is irascible — even if he's surly — even if he's in a bit of a state, for heaven's sake — and has offended you, and spoken unresonably to you — you're still not going to get to "punish" him, or shame him, or pillory him, you know. Now look me in the eye and tell me that trying to force him to keep a stupid fucking robotic warning template for newbies visible on his page[22] was intended as outreach, was intended as human contact, was meant to help — was not, in fact, meant to inflict a shame punishment, a public humiliation or parading on donkey? I understand that you're annoyed. But. We. Don't. Do. That.
That said, no, I don't actually think you were harassing him. If it sounded like any of my posts to you implied that, I regret it. He was being harassed. Not by you. Bishonen | talk00:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the parenting counsel. I guess I'm too old-school to have the right instincts. I'd spank him; or what his mouth out with soap. But I can see that your way is more progressive. Dicklyon05:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
If your "your" is being used in the singular, it is important to understand that It is not just her way, its our way. Paul August☎15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I write, perverse girl; but with all the indignation that your disobedience deserves. To desire to be forgiven a fault all your own, and yet desire to persevere in, is a boldness no more to be equalled than passed over. It is my authority you defy. Your reflections upon a sister that is an honour to us all, deserve my utmost resentment. I see how light all relationship sits upon you. The cause I guess at too. Continue banished from my presence, undutiful as you are, till you know how to conform to my will. Ingrateful creature! Your letter but upbraids me for my past indulgence! Write no more to me, till you can distinguish better; and till you are convinced of your duty to
LOL, it's Mr Richardson himself, how fab! I simply have to move this thread to the bottom of the page and change the header. Daddy, you're quite too modest in posting your tender, thoughtful, yet so stern and just response to your truly humbled Clarissa up there! Mind you, User:Bishapod was a boy last time I checked. And, er, what exactly does that make your relation to User:Bishzilla...? I don't much like to think about it. (As for you, Mouse, I love you, but you're not winning — how about a bit more of an effort, hmm?) Bishonen | talk14:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC).
Brother? Let me tell you, wench, of what he hath been about while you were disgracing the family. He was elected sachem, acknowledged first warrior of the Badger tribe, and dignified with the name or epithet of Occancanastaogarora, which signifies nimble as a weasel; but all these honours he was obliged to resign, in consequence of being exchanged for the orator of the community, who had been taken prisoner by the Indians who were in alliance with the English. Such are the outlines of his history, as he gave them to the delight of Miss Tabitha.
Oh, surely, you say, that a mother, Mrs. Norton, cannot forget her child, though that child could abandon her mother; and, in so doing, run away with all her mother's comforts! Is it less with a father?
With Old Laroon, I must ask, Harkye, will you please to tell me what this great impudence of yours means, and what you mean by annihilating me? The Aggrieved Father
MarlithT/C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Me object too speedy deletion of that thing? Certainly not. I did attempt to add a paragraph to it, taking issue with the rather prominent strawman arguments it enshrined, but I was promptly reverted by IPSOS, IIRC. I'm on a lousy bluetooth connection and can't really check out the the deleted versions right now, but if IPSOS wants the essay kept, or fully MFD'd or whatever, because of my valuable contribution, I'm ... speechless. Bishonen | talk15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC) .
Your speechlessness has been rejected for lacking a template format. If you'd like to do something-or-other, use the sandbox! El_C23:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Bishonen, the topic has been archived, at the noticeboard — not the regular kind of archiving, but the kind they use when they want everyone to shut up. The deletion of the essay is now being discussed at Deletion Review. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Easily unarchived, you know, El..! Anyhow, I can't really take part, my connection is seriously killing me. That will be the state of play for one week more, then 'Zilla will turn up and <ROARRR>explain<ROARRR>the whole thing to everybody (Down, Bishzilla!). Bishonen | talk10:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC).
We've never met, but
Your name was given to me by User:Carcharoth as someone to come to to look over a project I have undertaken at the suggestion of Carcharoth, and of User:DESiegel. DES and DGG have been working on it with me, and I believe it is something you'd have valuable input on, so I'd love it if you would take a peek, and see if there is any wisdom you can impart from your experience, along with any comments or suggestions you may have. Thank you sincerely in advance for allowing a stranger to intrude upon your time, Ariel♥Gold00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Surely this is not the most important thing. Encyclopedic content and missing articles are my priority. I've worked hard to find images to add to articles. Px size is yes a matter of preference but surely an image and article whatever size is better than nothing! I hope everyone can agree on something Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you?"Contribs18:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
A person arriving on the vandalism page is not likely to be a newcomer, and if it is; they should be told without biting that it is not ok to do POV-pushing . I agree that "POV-pushing" might be a little too harsh for a first time offender especially for a newcomer; but the language as written "not helpful" is exceptionally mild, almost like a license; there has to be a middle way. Itzse23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Itze. (Edit conflict — it's great if you can edit talkpages in one go rather than in installments, because those do tend to give the person trying to reply an edit conflict... :-( ) I didn't revert your edit because I thought a newcomer was very likely to read it, no. I reverted it because IMO it would tend to encourage people to speak aggressively to newcomers, instead of gently and welcomingly explaining why adding personal opinions to articles is not appropriate. It's important to encourage a newbie-welcoming culture on policy pages, and I'm afraid I didn't think your change did that. In view of the importance of assuming good faith — assuming that the newbie is trying to help, and may well have useful expertise — I actually do think "not helpful" strikes a good balance — indeed, that it is itself a middle way. We should not call them names, and "POV-pusher" is really bad..! Bishonen | talk23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, You're right about newbie’s; but this is one of the WP rules pages which are constantly used (and abused) by veterans who in the process of Wiki-lawyering, utilize its lack of strong language to get away with forcing their edits. So I still think that the tone has to be a little harsher then that, similar to the other rules pages, to keep them in check; after all this is the "vandalism" rule page, not an orientation page for newbies.
Sorry for paying you in installments; but I'm a perfectionist and although I thought that I had put together my thoughts, and after doing a preview clicked the dreaded page button; but then after seeing it go, I had some afterthoughts how to make my position clearer. Sorry for the annoyance; but I have a solution to the problem. I usually do a cut and paste of my edits so when I have an edit conflict; I just need to copy/paste it back. If you forgot to do a copy/paste, then just do as many "back to the previous pages" as needed to retrieve/copy the lost text. Then just do a do a paste in a new edit. Itzse19:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism policy is not a tool for keeping veteran POV-pushers in check. Yes, I can manage edit conflicts, thanks. It's just more convenient to not get them. Bishonen | talk21:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC).
Evolution - no revert war, just serious good faith editing
COPIED: I see a remarkably massive consensus on the talkpage against your drastic changes of the Evolution article. Your new introduction is resoundingly disapproved. The empty "sections" you've added are against policy (an article in mainspace isn't supposed to look like a draft). Being bold in a rewrite is excusable, even though the proper thing would have been to introduce such startling changes more gradually; but reverting to your version against consensus is really inappropriate from an experienced editor (as I see you claim to be). Please don't revert to your version or any part of it again, except in the remote-looking contingency that you get consensus for it on talk. Otherwise you will find yourself sanctioned for edit warring. Bishonen | talk22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC).
There's no revert war there. I made an edit, and objected to the rapid reversion of it without discussion by another editor. Since then I've been in full time discussion, with no intention of reverting again. I don't agree that reverting was innapropriate as it was done without any comment and WP:reverting specifically says:
Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.
Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
Here's a suggestion: don't scan Wikipedia policy pages for fragments that you can cherry-pick and cite misunderstandings of to admins and other experienced editors. Try reading the policies for their spirit, without prejudice, and for their relevance to what you do, instead of for the service you (mistakenly) think they can do you as ammunition. Seriously, I do believe a whole new, more interesting, editing world would open to you! Bishonen | talk10:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC).
I think I am being wrongly accused here. I realise that making drastic changes was a little forthright, but I chose to be bold as I was surprised to find an article about, as I saw it, the wrong subject. I only reverted once to give the idea a chance, and after that I only talked, so I don't think I was disruptive at all. I still think the article is about the wrong subject, and the reason that I failed to get approval, which shocked me, is that a number of editors have worked on this article for a long time with blinker on, and cannot see the obvious. What they have written is a second article about the modern evolutionary synthesis where I think there should be a general article about Evolution. They refer me to History of evolution, but I'm not talking about history alone, rather about Evolution as an ongoing subject of study (not one theory). I was jumped on as a Creationist (which I am certainly not!) and accused of sock-puppetry. Such stuff is surely abuse against the priciple of 'assume good faith'. Even you talk of 'remote looking contingency'. This personal approach is all wrong. I made a drastic edit in good faith, with comment as to why; and when it was instantly reverted, I reverted back to make clear the fact that I was serious. After that I just talked and made no more edits. That's it! No big deal! No need for dire warnings surely? Take a look. My name only appears twice in the entire history of the page! What on earth is going on? --Memestream14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You ask a number of questions to which the answers are already present in my note on your page, which is a classic way of wearing out the person you're talking to. (If protesting two separate times and ignoring my original response above wasn't enough, that is.) I will answer once more.
You only appear twice in the history, yes. Ten or fifteen times would have been better. As I said, "the proper thing would have been to introduce such startling changes more gradually", in other words to make a number of smaller edits instead of one huge edit, to which you then revert, in other words make yet another huge (and despite your casuisistry about reverting "to give the idea a chance" and "to make clear the fact that I was serious", utterly unconstructive) edit.
There is nothing personal (?) or offensive (??) in the phrase 'remote looking contingency'", it's purely descriptive. Read the sentence it's part of again, please: there is a massive consensus against your change, so it looks remote that you'll get consensus for it. Is that me not assuming good faith? No, that's you (whether deliberately or not) failing to follow a perfectly straightforward argument.
Read the essay WP:AAGF. The Assume Good Faith principle is something to be kept in mind in our own dealings, not an offensive weapon. (Frankly, nothing makes a worse impression than lobbing "You have to believe me, it's policy!" at the people you're arguing with. Think about it.) As for "What on earth is going on?"--well, looking at your several posts above, and the way you ignored my reply, I would say trolling. Please don't waste your time posting on this page again (it will be removed). Take a little time to read the replies I've already given instead. Bishonen | talk16:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC).
Oh, man. I suppose you think they're cute? I removed some more spam links plus one whole section while I was about it, and warned your spammer again. Bishonen | talk18:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC).
I see we both removed the "revised" [sic] section. I don't know why I didn't get an edit conflict, but the fact is I didn't. No harm done, I guess. And so goodnight. Bishonen | talk22:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC).
I chose to pursue resolution as an informal process. I followed the instructions and made the post. I am not attempting to prove anything, I am seeking an amicable solution. I cannot reply in that forum without creating further disruption. I do not think it is appropriate to ask an editor to pool up a series of insults (real or imagined) for the delectation of the community. If it is necessary for me to show where I was linked to holocaust denial, I can. But it is in plain sight, at the talk pages I pointed out. As I say, it is an informal process that has guidelines, I followed these in the interest of a harmonious result. I would appreciate it, if you could change your comment to reflect the instructions at the top of the page. Apologies for posting here and not there, I think I've explained why I can't. I'm being as discrete as possible, enigmatic is not the word I would chosen. 'Shaming others' is my complaint, not my intent. I hope you can help. Fred ☻ 19:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Diffs aren't a formality. I'm sorry, but discretion to the point of enigma makes it pointless to post on a public page. Do you see the people saying that they can't understand what the problem is? If you're not interested in outside comment but are only speaking to the people you're mad at, why not do it on their talkpages? I'm sorry you're upset, but the argument that you can't be specific because people would derive "delectation" from it... seriously, do you expect them to comment at random on something they don't get to read? Or to be so intrigued by the promise of delectation that they go chasing it down in the histories of long, busy talkpages? No, I'm afraid I can't help in such a situation. I wish I could, but I just don't have time to winkle out the offending items and the dialogue round them. Bishonen | talk22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC).
Hey Bish, or any of you fine admins who often watch this page...Today's featured pic (Image:Apollo 11 bootprint.jpg) has a mighty strange caption that doesn't make sense whatsoever (what does the sentence "This photo shows the undisturbed patch of ground before he placed his boot there" mean?). Unfortunately, the image and it's caption are protected from editing by little users like me. Can you please fix it? Thanks! --SGTTex16:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The benevolence of groundhog and other (cotton)tails
Sometimes, chips ask for peanuts by placing front paws on my legs. Yesterday, I was giving groundhog a few peanuts, and of course, pettings, when a chip came and placed front paws on groundhog's tummy, asking for a peanut. To groundhog's credit, munching of peanut continued uninterrupted (don't worry, everyone got peanuts). Also, there a new cotton tail in bridgeland, a small one. Unlike rabbitty, who is rather tame (or should I say timid), despite being larger, and never gets too close, this one actually was eating out my hand and even let me pet its head! That was a few days ago. Yesterday, I saw groundhog alarmed about something and went away, then I turned around and saw it was rabbitty, jr.! Oh, and there's new raccoon who seemed really thin, so I gave him some food (which he took right out of my hand, then ran to eat it under the bridge, repeating the process about 10 times). Sorry, no pics this time; you'll just have to imagine it! El_C18:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As you probably know already, the Photo editing article is still locked thanks to the inability of certain editors there to follow policies, discuss issues, etc. and devolve into filing RFCs and making harassing edits instead of deal with the actual article. As you also know, the admin User:Arthur Rubin has repeatedly used his admin status as a club to try to enforce his side in edit conflicts, as we've seen this problem for months, including harassing comments, a block of an IP address for "vandalism" when it was just an edit he didn't want to happen, etc. Now he has taken to editing locked articles to change to his preferred version (edit here). This is especially troublesome, as the Photo editing article has previously been locked to try to encourage discussion and compromise and their side refuses to do so, preferring to keep the article locked at their version. With another related article locked now also their way they continue to have no reason to discuss... and considering that that article in question is just a redirect to a subsection of an article (Photoshopping) they will never have any reason to discuss that page, as it's the way they want ad can be locked until kingdom come. I was hoping you might do something here to try to get around the impasse. DreamGuy15:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
And you know, it would be helpful if you showed up at the RFC to mention the fact that the complaining editors largely are people that you have had to warn for harassment in the past... I mean, the page is a who's who of abusive editors largely. DashaKat and Empacher are major POV-pushers on the DID article, MartinPhi was someone pushing the "reality" of psychic powers onto articles, Arthur Rubin is a very aggressive and bullying admin... I don't go around treating Wikipedia as a social experiment making friends so buddies can come back me up when people level coordinated attacks like this, but I would hope that people who are here to improve an encyclopedia would say something of assistance when so many people who clearly are not here to improve things gang up. Sometimes I am in your face with these people, but they have always been in my face with me, and it's clear that they hope to get my banned so that they can continue to make abusive edits with one less person to stop them. So how do we stop that? DreamGuy16:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to write something on the RFC, but am finding it rather difficult, so it may take a while longer still. :-) Bishonen | talk12:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for your comments. It sums things up pretty well. I do wish I could be in a situation where I can make edits without the same crowd of people continuing personal grudges from months or even years ago (like some of those permanently banned users I was first to spot who eventually did get the axe and who have been shown to still be using sockpuppets in the meantime) clamoring for my head in the background trying rile things up.
(oh, and just to be clear, the part Dan Case was complaining about me trying to get people "banned" was not me actually attempting to get anyone disciplined but simply just reiterating that they are not allowed to post to my talk page unless they show a good faith effort to use it for what it was intended: conversation with an attempt to improve the encyclopedia instead of comments intended to annoy and escalate controversy instead of solving it. I don't bother to try to get anyone disciplined... largely because I imagine if I would a whole crowd of people who are annoyed with me for correcting their errors/removing their spam/not giving them the devotion they believe to deserve would just show up to support anyone and everyone I would try to get banned just because it was me doing so. I know Elonka's RFAdmin round one was marked by several yes votes from those kinds alone, for example. The real problem editors usually eventually get reported by someone else later and banned all on their own without me having to say anything. I spend my time trying to improve the encyclopedia, not going through red tape to try to ban someone who will just be back on a new account a day later anyway.) DreamGuy13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, no confusion, I know it was about your talkpage. "Ban" isn't the most tactful choice of words for it, you know; not that it's confusing, but.. well, I dunno, I suppose because people feel the word makes some kind of formal claim. Me, I sometimes ask people not to post on my page, and haven't had any trouble upholding it, so far. The people who're so indignant about your attempted "talkpage bans" may in fact find the ArbCom feels differently about it, if they take it there. Check out the reply of jpgordon (= arb) here to an editor who resents me telling him not to post on my page. In fact I wanted to mention the subject in my outside view, but it seemed to get more than long enough without it. Bishonen | talk14:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC).
Well, that's good to know. I also responded on the RFC discussion page per that point giving my rationale for why the whole concept is a good thing. I don't think they have any basis for complaint, and I-forge-who's comments that he is offended by "removed unread" shows it's more about personal affront and expecting people to afford them a level of respect that they are unwilling to afford other people. DreamGuy15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You might want to look at this..if not, I can certainly understand. I obviously can't play passive aggressive with these ban evaders, so I have to deal with them somehow. If a completely neutral admin can't re ban this guy, then I'll have to take him to arbitration.--MONGO21:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not something I'm good at, but I'll take a look, sure. I'm not so much bored as slightly embarrassed. I think calling you a reactionary jerk by way of defending you may have sounded better in my head than it actually looks... er, did you see my ANI post of a few minutes ago..? Bishonen | talk21:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC).
No I am a reactionary jerk...that is why these trolls like jerking my chain so much...don't worry...I plan on making some alterations.--MONGO21:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hang in there, no need to arbitrate yet, but I don't understand what I'm reading, I'm too tired. (It's late here.) I'll look again tomorrow, unless somebody in a better time zone takes care of it in the meantime. Bishonen | talk22:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC).
Any and all feedback welcome
If there are better ways I could have approached the issue, please don't hesitate to offer feedback and I'll give your feedback real consideration. Thank you, Bishonen. -- User:RyanFreisling@18:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It just strikes me, I think you may have forgotten to tell Threeafterthree he was on ANI, didn't you? Apart from that I don't see anything to criticize in your actions, I think you did good, and under considerable provocation. (Sorry to add to it by protecting the Wikipedia:The Wrong Version... oh, noes, that's red?) Bishonen | talk18:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC).
I did indeed inform him of the AN/I: [25], although not to his talk page (shall I?). And no worries re: wrong version (I don't rightly care, just want to avoid these kinds of attacks in favor of resolving content disputes) Hmmm... yes, that oughtn't be red... :) -- User:RyanFreisling@19:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Note, this conversation is happening in two places. Here's what I added to Threeafterthree's talk page in reply:
Note that you have provided no justification for your removal of the text 'Allegations have been made that Rove and the Bush campaign was responsible for {the push poll}', since the cites demonstrate exactly that. Instead, you chose to use your edit summary to attack me:
rv attack site. Can ANYBODY else please step in. Why do I have the feeling this isn't the first time Ryan has engaged in this type of edit waring and use of attack sites and agenda pushing?
As I said, not a rationale in sight for the deletion, and heaping personal attack.That's the kind of conduct that you've been engaged in throughout this dispute - evading issues of content by repeated personal attacks. -- User:RyanFreisling@19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if original research were allowed, I was the recipient of not one, but two, push polls done by the GOP in 2004. Not the subject under discussion, of course, but the temptation to say, "Would it change your opinion of the content dispute if you were to learn that Karl Rove has a signed photo from the Hitler fan club on his wall" is overwhelming. Geogre22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, can you please look at the section in dispute as it stands now since I can live with this. Can you also please look at the sources in that section and give your opinion? I really tried to assume good faith at first, but after awhile I do admitt I got very frustrated. Anyways, I will try not to interact with this editor and will defer to the communitty and hopefully uninvovled parties. Cheers! --Tom19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The little developers aren't scared enough of her, unfortunately. Nothing can be removed from the log, that's the reason it's important to think before you block. (I mean, I pretend that's the reason, the real reason is I enjoy jumping up and down on people and try to start pile-ups — it's like a hobby I have.) Something can be added, by means of the famous one-second block, if that's any use. For an example, see what Alex did here. Bishonen | talk20:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC).
I thought Bishzilla was responsible for this? Ironically, in that case, the block log of the later re-incarnation tells a worse story than the original block log! :-) (Apologies in advance if the user in question is reading this - I'm firmly in the "look at the contribution history" camp, and the "long-term contributors are more likely to be here in 10 years time than the serial administrators, so cut them a little bit of slack" camp). Seriously, I thought there were one or two cases of developers expunging block logs. Rare as hens' teeth, but not impossible. I think in cases where a block log is actually defamatory to the extent that someone's real name is involved, and something really nasty has been said in the block comment, then maybe, yes. But theoretically, a single block that can be explained away if people question it shouldn't be that bad. You have to trust voters (eg. at RfA, RfB, ArbCom elections, WMF board elections) to not focus on stuff like a minor, possibly unjustified, block. And I think the 1-second block is a very good way of adding a "note" to an unjustified block, as long as it provides some information or link allowing people to later find the discussion about the block. And people who get all "proud" about an unblemished block record are even sillier - there are people who have never been blocked who quite possibly should have been, and there are people who have been blocked who shouldn't have been. Ditto for those people who take pride in a "unanimous RfA". That is a random thing dependent on the mood of RfA at the time. I was particularly irked when, while following links from a column I read today, linked from the most recent Signpost, I read a comment where someone cited their RFA tally and edit count as having some sort of meaning. Readers of the column may have been impressed (or just bewildered), but as a Wikipedian, I winced when reading that. If I was ever to promote Wikipedia to others, it would be on the basis of the content of the encyclopedia and the sometimes excellent contributors, not the organisational froth of admins, arbitration committee, bureaucracies, votes, and navel-gazing discussions (of which I am guilty as well). Those are needed, but strip those away, strip away the block logs and the shouting and arguing, and what you should be left with is an encyclopedia with some excellent content. (Sorry, got a bit carried away there, I'll get off my soapbox). Carcharoth00:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It just won't stop
Bishonen, each time I go through the effort to resolve the content dispute with User:Threeafterthree, each time I painstakingly go thru the effort of demonstrating with citations how the original wording that he has consistently blanked was indeed properly cited, User:Threeafterthree shifts to personal attacks. It has been happening over and over these past 24-36 hours. Witness this latest little nugget [26].
Honestly, I just want to focus on content!
I haven't returned a single personal attack, or been uncivil to this user... it's quite one-sided. The threads and edit summaries are there for all to see but I'll assemble diffs if needed. Luckily, I've got a lovely beach and a house of friends in real life to distract me - so I'll be focusing off-wiki for a while but checking in occasionally. -- User:RyanFreisling@22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The classic use of the ad hominem is not to insult, but to change the subject from the topic under debate to the person doing the debating, whether with an insult, a lie, or even a compliment on her shoes. It's quite common among the shouting class to engage in that sort of ad hominem. When the debate goes against, change to the person; the only way to defeat it is to never, ever, even once defend the person and to remain on the topic. Geogre12:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Essay on how 3RR hurts the project and a proposal to fix it.
Indeed. I just noticed. Ryan Postlethwaite had already blocked when I went to do it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be the kind of IP that can usefully be blocked for more than 24 hours. Bishonen | talk20:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC).
I'm off to bed, can you watch this one for me[28] obviously playing truant from school. Oh for the good old days when they had an hours detention followed by a jolly good whacking. Giano21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello - we've not had any direct contact before, but I just want to say that based on some of your posts to various discussions I admire greatly your efforts to keep Wikipedia a productive environment in the face of lots of external challenges, including people who want to turn WP into what *they* want it to be. It's a tough job, but someone has got to do it :-) My hat is off to you. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk12:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I understand better now. Until recently, I'd never had anybody revert my talk page. Once is not a big deal, but repeatedly sure is annoying. Especially while you are actually trying to do some editing!
Pleased to see SWAT! For great justice, see next ANI thread, immediately below, where puny 'shonen already posted. SWAT recollection somewhat spotty! Person pester KillerChihuahua, not pester 'shonen. 'shonen block him, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 2. Old conflict hardly worth reviving on ANI, in 'zilla view — all persons are welcome to request help from admins. (Vote 'zilla4admin now!) bishzillaROARR!!15:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC).
I have a question and it is one of equity. Why is IPSOS allowed to post inciting comments on others talkpages (and Users Pages) and when challenged in a perfectly well mannered way he opts out by "don't post on my talk page again". Keep in mind in my case he was claiming I was a sockpuppet and with Admin like authority went and posted this on my User Page [31]. His tone was not too pleasant either. Now I see he has done this to another member and gone and cried wolf here[32], but please note that he failed to mention he posted this on this User's Page [33] just as he did with me.
I am bothering to write to you for two reasons. First, this type of action by IPSOS is contrary to a positive working experience here and is lacking in the wikispirit. Second, is that when he does this (posting on other User's Page) he is stepping beyond his authority and intimidating other Users which is plain wrong. Lastly, in my case I found his actions to be non-productive and using up resources that could be spent on "real" issues rather than his assumptions. So, in the act of parity perhaps you might find it fitting to tell him to stop placing "assumptions" that discredit others without validity. Thank you for your time with regards to these issues. PEACETalkAbout19:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't followed these disputes, and don't have any opinion in the sockpuppet matter. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to dig deep into them, either. I'm only one admin. I don't run the place, or fix everything that's amiss, or research everything that might be amiss. Considering the discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Green108, I would advise you to bring the matter to the CheckUser User:Mackensen, on his talkpage.
You speak at random about IPSOS having "gone and cried wolf". He'd be welcome to take such complaints to me or any admin, and so would you, but in this case I merely happened to notice the reverts. I suppose you read my warning to Faithinhumanity? It explains what the problem was (harassment), and what the rules are (don't revert other people's talkpages; don't keep posting if they make it clear they don't want you there). As for equity, and IPSOS getting "Special Treatment", yes, I'm sorry, I'm the Special Treatment Admin, I give a lot of special treatment.[34][35][36][37][38] Let me know if anybody's reverting you on your own talkpage and I'll come along and give you some, too. Bishonen | talk20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC).
Bishonen, Mackensen did do that for me and I did thank him as I was not sure if I was allowed to remove it. My point was merely that this individual seems to place tags on people, make declarations/assumptions and well perhaps I am a wee bit too sensitive as it kept me from editing. I see now that you are well aware of this issue and shall not trouble you further. I do thank you for your time and efforts.PEACETalkAbout23:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I just noticed that you didn't delete it first. Could you please delete? The archive was already gone, the only content that was there was content put there by WS. I'd prefer that the history be gone. He just copied a particular snapshot of my talk page there for his own purposes. Nothing would be lost, it's all in my talk page history. IPSOS (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see what business IPSOS' talkpage and archives and their edit history are of yours, I advise you to get some new interests. Meanwhile I'm considering whether or not to to remove this edit from your talkpage and deprive you of your dickish triumph in retaining it. Please review WP:NOT a battleground.
IPSOS, it's not possible to protect an actually deleted page. I can either blank and protect, or delete and not protect. The second alternative would mean that somebody who has saved a copy can recreate the page. Hence, the expression "salting the earth" for the blank-and-protect alternative: it's done to prevent recreation. However, I can do this: delete all revisions in the history except the top—blanked—and protect that. The history would be gone, and nothing could be added. Or I can do this: delete the whole thing, and give a good long block for disruption and trolling to anybody who recreates it. Your choice. Bishonen | talk23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC).
Kisses? You obviously didn't see this! Could you take care of the cascading, then, please, El? It's really late here, I need to go to bed, and my head isn't working. Bishonen | talk00:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC).
Ooh, that's harsh (and it's loading now; and it was only a single-character, singular-plural change – go figure!). Sure, I don't mind doing it for you, but why am I doing it, again? (in the "reason" field what do I put; i.e. I'm deleting-protecting this page because...?). Feel free to fill in for her, if you wish, IPSOS. Your favorite The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. admin, El_C01:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, well, my apologies if I was too harsh on you, El_C. I'm curious to see how the AfD will turn out without the now blocked socks. I'm much, much happier to let it be deleted if that's the result with a proper AfD. As for the archive page, Bishonen, maybe we should just go with a straight delete. I'm curious to see whether WS will recreate it with you watching. Could be educational... for someone. IPSOS (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
No worries; shit happens. I haven't looked at the DrV since I made my last comment there (took it of my watchlist in dismay), but it looked obvious it would be relisted, for reasons which I find stupid. It also looks likely that it will be kept for vote-like reasons which I find disturbing, although less for this article (it seems like a harmless enough group to be using Wikipedia to promote itself, I'm more concerned about other, more insidious ones and of the precedence this sets). Enough about that. I'll just delete it normally and we can go from there. El_C03:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Pushy admin
I have been editing a page called List of wars and disasters by death toll on a fairly regular basis for about the last 14 months. Over that time I have accumulated over 400 edits on the mainpage and talk page, which I think demonstrates my ongoing commitment to improving it. The page essentially lists the range (low to high) of death toll estimates for wars and other man-made mass mortalities through history.
Recently I had problems with a disruptive editor (and intermittent adversary) who made a number of changes I thought questionable. Going to one of the links he added, I found a large copyvio by him, and because my grasp of Wiki policies is unfortunately still somewhat ropey, I decided to bring the copyvio to the attention of an admin who had previously invited me to report such incidents directly to him.
The admin in question left a warning at the offending editor's page, but that editor then claimed that I had been making "original research" edits to the list of wars page and asked the admin to intervene. Since then the admin, Philip Baird Shearer has taken a strong interest in the page himself, and it turns out his vision of the page is much different to mine.
Now that is just a bad break from my POV, but that's how Wiki operates and I am always willing to work - exhaustively if necessary - with others on talk pages to resolve disputes. Indeed, up until now, I have always retained faith that almost any dispute can be satisfactorily resolved with sufficient goodwill from all parties.
This faith is being tested however by my experiences with this particular admin. Although he and I are essentially the only editors discussing changes to the page, he continually makes proposals, and when I object to them, airily states that "if no-one else" objects to his proposed changes he will go ahead and make them anyway. And more and more, he is doing just that.
This willingness to completely ignore the views of another user is something I have encountered before from POV pushers - who hasn't? - but never from an admin, which office is supposed to embody fair play and Wiki policy. To be perfectly honest, I am wondering how this guy ever got to be an admin in the first place.
Basically - given my somewhat tenuous grasp of policy - I thought I would ask for some input from an outsider, and since on my occasional forays to this page I've noticed that the admins who post here appear to be a reasonable, commonsense bunch, I thought I would come here first to see if anyone might be interested in reviewing the behaviour of my protagonist.
In addition to his apparent willingness to simply ride roughshod over my opposition, PBS has also provided reasons for his edits which I find to be just plain incomprehensible. He has, for example, persistently made claims about lack of citations which are, quite frankly, bullshit - and then edited the page accordingly. For example, he claimed repeatedly, such as at this entry, that "not one of the current democide estimates lists a source for the claim" - in spite of the fact that there are multiple citations directly from the website of the originator of the term "democide" himself, Professor Emeritus of Political Science RJ Rummel, at which location he has reproduced a great deal of content from his own scholarly works (check the footnotes listed next to the estimates themselves at this earlier version of the page by way of example). Based on this fraudulent claim, PBS then went on to add a useless column to the democide list entitled "claimants" (ie sources) - when the sources in many cases are already extant right next to the estimates themselves! (while others are provided in the included links).
Philip's latest gambit is to decide the "Wars" section is to be arbitrarily limited to wars with over 100,000 dead - again against my expressed opposition - and in a preparatory move has deleted over 100 entries in the "Wars" section accordingly, including breakdown tables for the Vietnam War and Arab-Israeli conflict, many of whose estimates I painstakingly sourced to original works myself. He has then added "citation needed" templates to all remaining entries, in spite of the fact that at least some of these entries link to other Wiki pages dedicated to the topic which are exhaustively sourced themselves, such as the World War I casualties and World War II casualties pages (see current version of the page).
My own sense about these fraudulent claims of missing or bad sources is that they do not so much represent a genuine desire to verify sources - how could they be when he clearly isn't even bothering to check the sources in question first - but rather to advertise his intention to exercise a leadership role in determining content - an intention that in my opinion violates Wiki policy. Obviously, I'm not exactly happy about this state of affairs.
So basically, I'm asking if one of the admins who posts here would like to conduct a review of this guy's behaviour. If not, could someone at least suggest to me what the next step might be? Do I bring it up at community bans, or ani or something? Start an RfC (he appears to be a member in good standing, so I doubt this would achieve anything)? I mean, the last thing I want to do is start an edit war, no-one wins in such cases and given that I'd be edit warring with an admin, I suspect it would not take long before he found an excuse to just block me.
My exchanges with PBS begin at the talk page topic entitled Genocides and democides (I think one can safely ignored the digression between myself and Jdcooper in that section), and continue through man-made famines and Wars. PBS appears to have largely ignored the compromise proposals I made beyond that point which attempted to address some of his concerns. Thanks, Gatoclass09:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, that sounds very discouraging. The obvious first measure is to get more eyes on the article. That means an RfC. Note, an "article RfC", not a "user RfC" — as you say, a user RfC is unlikely to achieve much. It's confusing and unhelpful, I've always thought, that these two quite different processes share a name, but, well, they do. Here's the one you want. See where it says you should write a brief neutral statement about what the disagreement is? I'm sure you can do "neutral", but the number of problems may make "brief" difficult... just do the best you can there. Article RfC's often work well, provided you're able to get people actually to come to the page and comment. Because that's the weak spot of the process; the demand for RfC reviewers far outstrips the supply. You see what I'm getting at? Besides being brief and neutral, your description of the conflict needs to be interesting. Seductively so, if you think you can manage it... Avoid pushing your own opinions in it, just get people to want to take a look. Addressing user conduct issues would be the next step, which I hope there won't be any need for after the article RfC. Hope it works out. And, El C, isn't this subject right up your street? If you have the time? Bishonen | talk10:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC).
Thanks very much for the useful advice, an article RFC just didn't occur to me. As it happens, I was just thinking my above post might be a tad premature, as it seems I misinterpreted one of his comments which I took to be a clear statement of intention to ignore my views. All the same, he has ignored my wishes on several occasions.
We are back discussing content ATM, so perhaps we can still get somewhere. But if he continues to just ignore my POV and make the changes he thinks are appropriate, I will have to take it further, although as you said I'm not sure an article RFC will do the job as people often just don't respond. Gatoclass10:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Faithinhumanity. Please give your posts on user talk pages a header (I've done it for you here), otherwise they will appear in the section of some other person, and be hard to find. Also, please always give a diff link to the edit that you want to complain of, as admins will probably be reluctant to spend time searching the site for it. I'm assuming IPSOS told you to piss off? That wasn't very nice. But people are only human. If you behave annoyingly, they will probably get annoyed and may snap at you. Re-posting stuff that people have removed from their pages doesn't qualify as dialogue, it's pure annoyance. Bishonen | talk21:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC).
Even ArbCom is a -bot now? I thought the very justification for Clerks was this type of thing. I had to argue with a -bot for two days over an image. It had been tagged when uploaded as US govt, but then the Commons asses got it, but didn't get the tag (because theirs are different), and from there it was a -bot ballet as one listed it on a list that the other read to delete for another to go remove from articles. Oh, such deep conversations those -bots and I had. The reasoning was tight, with several strong points made on both sides, until I just restored the image. See, that's the groovy thing about the -bot bash: the really old pictures had text descriptions that said what the licensure was, but then the pictographic geeks started demanding templates. Instead of going through to look for text, they just started moving things, stripping descriptions, and then saying, after performing an amputation, "See, I told you he was paraplegic!" Geogre02:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I still do my case openings the long way (and sometimes it is indeed the long way, in that the last two cases I opened, Allegations of apartheid and BJAODN, has about 35 commenters each), but some of the new generation of clerks thought bot-notification might work well, as it traditionally has for MedCom. Any malfunctions or reservations can be reported to the clerks' noticeboard. (The next generation of bot is planned as drafting decisions in the cases, but that one may be a couple of months away yet.) Regards, Newyorkbrad02:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Two comments: 1) I read that as one case, "Allegations of apartheid and BJAODN" and I thought, how can one allege BJAODN and what do bad jokes have to do with Aparthied? which only shows how late it is in my time zone as I type this, because the answer is contained in the question (hows that for a run on and on sentence eh?)
I am looking forward for the time when bots would be also voting in the ArbCom cases, enforce the decisions and, as the last step, do the most difficult the most trivial task that anyone can do that is so far reserved for the fickle and ill informed populace, mainspace content writing bots. At that point we would all finally get real and get lives. We had bot wars over iwiki-links. We will then have bot edit-wars over real content, Soviet-POV bots, anti-Soviet ones, Scientology bots, Michael Jackson is a pedophile bots, Michael Jackson is innocent bots, Pedophilia userbox bots,
help-push through an RfAdm bots
derail the RfAdm bots
block-bots
unblock-bots,
expose an IRC cabal bots
plot and IRC cabal bots and bots talking to each other via IRC as well,
Oh, well, I think we're already at the point of replicants. Besides, we all know, sigh, that programming a bot, sigh, takes such skill and time, sigh, that mere writers of words cannot question them (or supply them with a tank of oxygen so that they can stop sighing). Geogre11:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Polbot doesn't write content, so much as parse a database into sentences. The database still has to make sense, otherwise GIGO applies. But seriously, the above (especially the 300+ citation needed tags) should go on BJAODN, which (having been deleted) is now itself on BJAODN... Oh, the recursiveness! (said in the same tones as "Oh, the humanity!" from the Hindenburg disaster). The serious point in all this, is that Newyorkbrad is talking about a "new generation" of clerks. I thought he was part of the new generation? Or was it so long ago now since he became an arbcom clerk? Carcharoth22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I started helping out on the RfAr page around December and became an official clerk I believe in February. I'm still active there, but we have had some other turnover, including Thatcher131 deciding to find a new on-wiki vocation and some wikibreaks, and some new people volunteering to fill the gap. Newyorkbrad22:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact not only 300+ tagging incident, but for each of the above there is a real user (or several) who set an example.
I am currently writing a "Go Bishzilla!" bot. Once started it would do the following:
Nominate user:Bishzilla for adminship and 'cratship at all the WMF projects as for stewardship at meta.
"archive" as "do not belong here" all oppose votes.
followed by blocking the opposers
Also digging through their contribution logs to uncover real IP's, phone numbers, dates of births, etc. and posting them online
While at their contribution logs also retag all their images and nominate them for deletion
The bot will also produce socks who would support
and unblock them after blocks
blocking the blocking admins and applying to them steps 3.1 and 3.2 above
The bot would then close the voting and promote too (of course the bot would first do that for itself so that it is in a possession of all buttons.)
Since writing bots is very complicated, unlike writing content, I will need some time to finish the job but Bishzilla would notice when I finish by a sudden change in her user-rights log. :) --Irpen22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The little Irpen very fine user! Irpen only little user understand what 'Zilla deserve and require! [Bishzilla tromps off to find suitable reward to give Irpen.] bishzillaROARR!!22:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
Thank you for your comments. I don't quite understand what your concern is. My edit to Kievan Rus' removed one of the hideous profusion of infoboxes at the top of that article. Do you really think the layout was acceptable as it was? My edit summary stated that I was reverting back to Alex Bakharov, whose edit was in turn a revert of a sockpuppet (namely, Zogden2). Is that a problem? Is it in all seriousness your opinion that Zogden2 is not a sock... ? My Japanese is a little rusty btw. Please post any further messages in Danish, Nynorsk, or Middle Dutch. Bishonen | talk16:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC).
CSD AutoReason Updated
Attention spamlist! I've just updated CSD AutoReason to account for the new image deletion page. If you'd just hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 in most browsers), you'll get the new version and be on your way. ^demon[omg plz]17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Presumably the editors who spend their time coding these things on their user pages also could spend that time more productively editing? In the end, in a volunteer organization, we go nowhere by trying to tell people how to spend their time as long as they don't disrupt things. Personally, I don't remove various inappropriate content from user pages, but I will call it inappropriate when it is. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you see the various people giving their opinion in the matter and then moving on? Why you feel it important to keep repeating yours all over the place is a mystery to me. Bishonen | talk07:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC).
Just to say thanks for what seems to be a splendid guideline, which when I think of it complements WP:DICK rather well. Anyway, enough trivia. Turns thoughts back to todo list. .. dave souza, talk08:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Haha, thanks! I'm rather surprised that hasn't been speedied or MfD'd yet. I really created it in order to have a pompous-looking bluelink in this post — I wasn't expecting anybody to actually click on it. Bishonen | talk15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC).
Thank you
Hi, Bishonen. Nice to see you appear again in the TM article after many months -- good to know that you're keeping an eye on things (sort of a deus ex machina). Thanks so much for encouraging participants to avoid edit warring. I hope we can resolve this through discussion. TimidGuy11:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, TG, long time! The edit summary popped up on my watchlist... yeah, I'm always curious about edits with that kind of summary. Bishonen | talk15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC).
TheFinalclub.org links
Have you seen followed the link to the annotations of the Shakespeare plays. Those annotations were done by a person with a PhD from Harvard's English department. The line-by-line Macbeth commentary is probably better than anything available free or in-print. Furthermore, links to for-profit sites such as Sparknotes and Cliff's Notes remain. I don't particularly understand your objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewmagliozzi (talk • contribs) 15:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have. Many people have followed the link and commented on it on article talkpages and on your own talkpage. Please engage with what they say instead of spamming the same identical objection to them all. (And what makes you think they're not PhD's?) Stop adding the link or I'm going to have to block you. Please. P. S. It's important to always add your message at the foot of talkpages, not somewhere in the middle, as it's likely to be overlooked there. Bishonen | talk16:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC).
Emigration
Hi Bishonen: and here I thought you'd written a companion article! If you should have any other projects you want a third party to skim, let me know. –Outriggr♠23:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you have decided to FAC your page about people leaving Sweden [41]. I just hope it was the right thing to do - I mean, do you have the requisite number of footnotes? - and more importantly....how can I put this?...really I don't mean to to be unkind - but er.... is your English up to it? - you do have an unfortunate habit of splitting your infinitives, not that it matters to me, but Raul is a very busy person indeed (though not as busy as some) and may not have the time to correct lazy grammar etc. Are you sure it has met criteria "2b" or whatever it is called, not that I have ever read the criteria, but then I never split an infinitive or have the time to seriously read these dull criteria instructions. Giano22:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The split infinitive criterion is a bugger, yeah. You have to accept we can't all have your facility, nor your baronesses. Bishonen | talk23:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC).
Of course my own English is near perfect, in fact many people often remark on the standard of my English, my infinitives are a wonder to behold, if you would like me to lightly coypedit it, you only have to gently hint. Although of course I am a very busy person <sigh> I could, if I can find the time, try to quickly squeeze you in. Have you thought about an English night class? Giano06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating article! BTW, the only thing I would change is making images larger. There is enough text to accommodate larger images and make the necessary detail seen form within the article without having to click on images. But that's just my thought. I will send Irpen-bot handle this FAC as per 'Zilla's RfAdm precedent. :) --Irpen07:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Wanna see what's in my bag?
I won't be messing with the emigration bag anymore. All done. It can be sewn shut with iron wire now. I find that that's a good way to keep out pests, like Thor. Utgard Loki15:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure. That's what the mortals always say: "The gods only eat the smoke of the barbecue, because that's the best part, and we're stuck eating the lousy meat." I'm not buying it. Food shouldn't cause stomach spasms. Geogre00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Speak
there's also another chip one pillar to the left of em, on top of bridge, sitting (happy!); oh, and on closer look, yet another one looking at him, sitting by bush below (also happy!)
Hello. I'm leaving this on your talk and the article page, as I'm not sure where's best. The play definitely refers to conventions of Restoration comedy, but it's significance lies in being the first of the new genre of sentimental comedy. It is described as such in The Cambridge Guide to Theatre. Unless there's a better, more specific citation than that, I think that ought to define its genre. I've read this together with The Relapse, though I confess it was a while ago, and placing the two together makes the distinction clear.
DionysosProteus21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Right, thanks for communicating. Well, I know of more specialized discussions than the Cambridge Guide, it's sort of my field. (I wrote the articles on The Relapse and Love's Last Shift.) I don't agree about the "sentimental comedy," but I don't exactly feel strongly about it, either. I'll see if I can find the time and, uh, momentum to fix up some nice citation for my opinion. In the meantime, please feel free to revert my revert right back, if you like. We should probably post any further discussion on the article talk, where other people can find it. Regards, Bishonen | talk22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC).
Me! Me! I have sentiments, and I am a comedy. (The Relapse... you know, dear, it's kinda sorta somewhat sorta kinda sentiment-ish, if you tilt your head and squint, but it's not in any way Sentimental Comedy. If I were doing Sentimental Comedy (and heaven and administration forefend I ever do), I wouldn't even put the two together, because the sentimentalism in it is probably relevant more to the later-emerging sententious sentiment in Steele and Lillo ("Lillo and Snitch," as I call them).) Geogre00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sir/Madam/or both, while propagating wikilinks for my newly created cigarette case I could not help but notice the existence of seemingly duplicating articles, User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder and User:Babajobu/European toilet paper holder. Is there any particular reson for this redundancy? In this connection I also could not help but nothice that in User:Bishonen/Toilet paper holder the section "Antarctic toilet paper holder" pitifully lacks the subtle elegancy and verifiability of the remaining text, so I even at first did not believe you added the piece yourselves. Also I refret to notice that you are unfortunately mistaken: in Antarctica they wipe themselves with snow. This is a little known and unusual, however plain, fact, but it is rather believable, if you recall the reason why Arabs consider the left hand unclean (if you wave with left hand to bin Laden (PBUH), he will shoot you in place and Iran you will be fined and your left hand stoned (rajm-i-sqierd)). If you didn't know the latter fact and don't believe me (wikipedia article missing), check out google. Therefore if you don't object, may I humbly ask you to allow me to rewrite this rather stubby section. (Suggested summary: in Antarctica the whole Antarctica is one huge toilet paper holder (or its homolog), making it the hugest TPH in the whole wide world.) -User:Laudak
Well, User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder, and so on, are userpages, not articles. The names starting with the name of a user means that they're in "userspace", not "mainspace". All sorts of things go on in the userspace... people are free to copy the piece, composed mainly by User:Giano and myself, ad libitum, and keep it in their own space, and I think more than Babajobu have done so. User:Bishonen/Toilet paper holder was an impulsive attempt to organize tph's across the globe, which I immediately got bored with. Still in existence, is it? Fancy that. Do feel free to improve it according to your own creative notions.
"historical section" - yes, I am aware of that. Since I am not an expert and wrote it using google for wisdom. Since there are close to million of google hits, 95% being merchandize ads, it was quite painful job to pick the gems out of dirt. I will try to continue this later. It is amazing how simple things may have rich content to write about. Laudak18:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
...has just offered me a beer so I believe the fuck off has been forgiven. (At the moment I posted it, I felt within my rights.)
If you've read that then you have seen some of the back story. Radiant and PMA (for reasons I still don't fathom) are against Wikipedia joining the rest of the English publishing world and advising against masculine usage where gender is indeterminate. Yes, the singular they rankles some people, but if it's good enough for Cambridge, it should be good enough for Wikipedia. Despite your animus against Tony (and apparently me), surely you see the wisdom in this proposed (and incredibly mild) guideline. Marskell16:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Animus against Tony? Was I supposed to be taking a shot at Tony? He's always pleasant and polite to me, so that would be black ingratitude indeed. You don't think Tony's alone, or extreme, in opposing FACs over dots and dashes, do you? I sure don't. It's a sad state of affairs if I can't give info on ANI for any other reason than animus. Radiant kept pointing out that editing a guideline isn't a big deal, and I couldn't understand why no FACer would tell him that changes to the MOS are a big deal wrt FAC, because of the featured article criteria and the "MOS breaches" Wasn't it true, what I said? Was it a secret? Was the discussion better for Radiant not knowing it? I did object to your attack on Hoary, yes. It seemed quite unprovoked to me, as I didn't see any "venom" in his post. I only saw energetic annoyance at attempts to police perfectly good and established usage (singular they ) into submission. Apparently you agree about the matter of fact. I don't know which guideline you mean, whether about gender, singular they, or something else. I read the singular they stuff on Tony's subpage—don't remember how it caught my eye—not the gender stuff. You'll have to be more explicit about the incredibly mild guideline if you want a response about it. Bishonen | talk19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC).
Nonsense. Cambridge is folly in this regard, and they will correct themselves before long and look as silly in the process as the publishers of "Jive Bibles." An indeterminate "he" is acceptable. An alternation of pronouns or the use of "he or she" is preferrable. More variation and more potential is better than less. Utgard Loki17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Last, first: Bishonen calls 'singualar they' "good and established usage" (I agree that's it's generally good, if not totally established; Hoary and I seem to agree as well—I think we failed to realize that we agree, which was part of the problem). Utgard, meanwhile, is calling it nonsense. Cambridge is not in folly and I very much doubt that Cambridge is going to reverse direction. Of course, he is still acceptable with indeterminate gender (the proposed guideline does not say otherwise). But if, in 2007, you're so lazy that you cannot come up with non-sexist phrasing (yes, it is sexist, once you have the cognitive tools to understand what sexism means) then I'll call your position idiotic. The opposition to the guideline (not necessarily to the phrasing, but to the general intent) has been idiotic indeed. (The guideline I'm referring to is the potential guideline in Tony's user space, whose talk page we're discussing.)
"[Do I think] Tony's alone, or extreme, in opposing FACs over dots and dashes?" He most certainly is extreme insofar as he does that. But he doesn't, in my experience, oppose over dots and dashes—he opposes over the general quality of the prose and orthography, of which dots and dashes are one part. I mean, I have literally never seen Tony write something like "Oppose: incorrect dash use" by itself. Perhaps he has. Most often I have seen "Oppose: this is not professional prose." Tony is the most exacting editor I have encountered wrt prose, and I think he knows he's at one extreme but feels it worthy to defend that fort. He's seen me keep a FAR over his prose objections, almost certainly; and he also knows I consider his comments closely. Articles are certainly never defeatured based on dashes alone. That would be truly silly.
Which leads to last: there is no FAR/FAC cabal. There really isn't. If your post to AN/I, Bishonen, was not prompted by real animus toward Tony (or me), then I retract the suggestion. But it's become extremely tiresome to read these posts tacitly suggesting that there is a group of people cackling over em-dashes. Marskell21:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, Marksell: Cambridge already looks silly and won't have to wait. Using a singular they is not good, but it is an old error. Old errors are still errors, and arguing from practice to rule is utterly stupid, because, in fact, using a plural noun with a singular verb, or vice versa, is quite common as well, and yet we elitist snobs still call it an error. From the evening news to TV commercials, you will hear such things as, "There's millions of reasons for calling this a mistake." "Oh, but proscriptive grammarians are all just trying to rap our knuckles," people say. No: number is non-negotiable in English. This is not telling children to stop saying "ain't." This is telling you, and anyone else who cares, that it is an outright error to write "they" and intend a singular. It is not acceptable, not good. It is an affront to logic and sentiment, and the fact that people do it has nothing to say in its favor. People get drunk and vomit on their friends, too, but it's still an error. Using "he" as an indefinite singular is acceptable. Using it does not indict the understanding or politics of the author, either, and, frankly, how dare you or anyone else say that a stranger must be a sexist for not adopting your desired solution to the problem of English's lack of an indefinite personal pronoun? It's rude, and it's stupid, to do so. My first thought is that someone who does that is trying to be old fashioned and has a fondness for what HE perceives as being "proper" (fussy) English. I would not conclude that such a person is a sexist, for I do not know HIM (and "he" turns out to be "she" as often as not).
To embrace "they" as a solution is to embrace the least logical, least elegant, and least communicative of the many solutions to the problem.
As for CUP, it already has a silly reputation for being faddish. This certainly doesn't help them gain the gravitas they long ago forfeited. Geogre01:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: I just noticed your good-hearted post to Tony's talk, Bishonen. I had read the AN/I post as an unfair jab at him but I see that you didn't intend it as such. You appreciate the work he does—so do I. We can agree on that! Marskell22:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
What would we do without the three of you: Bishonen, Hoary and Marskell? Among my most respected WPians, truly. Let me say that Radiant and PM are, as far as I can see, mounting a gradual attack on the status of MOS. They've successfully weakened it a little via the style-guide, only the other day. PM's strategy of unilateral and sudden changes to the text, without consensus (now vehemently supported by Radiant on that count) has gathered pace. Now they and their associates are widening this front to include age-old complaints about the upholding of standards at FAC (and FAR/C by implication). I've analysed some of Radiant's polemic at GNL, which s/he has taken great offence to. And now there's a continuing campaign against me at these administrative sites I've never before set foot in. Oh well, the dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on. PS I never oppose FACs for dots and dashes, but I do expect them to be fixed up. Tony00:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, Hoary, and Loki, I've moved your following posts to Geogre's page. I really don't know what they, or some of the above either, were doing here. Please take a hint, now.Bishonen | talk16:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC).
Paintings of people crossing things
Hi, I stumbled upon your category Category:Paintings of people crossing geographical features, and out of false patriotism I made it for the world to see that Suvorov crossed more things than Napoleon :-) What worries me that I am aware of quite a few deletionists which may try to delete this category under some pretext or other. I see this happening all the time, the notable example being the category:Lists of songs, which was literally devastated after I split it into reasonable and quite large subcategories similar to yours. Can you think of some solid rock argument to oppose them? `'Míkka19:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wow... and you actually created that dab page for it? I'm touched! Here was I all set to apologize for my silliness and speedy the category myself... but it's too nicely populated to delete, now. OK, that's my rock solid argument: "Keep, too nice to delete." There's a wide-ranging discussion of it here, btw. Bishonen | talk19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC).
I am a great admirer of yours. One could not help noticing your valiant attempts to educate the lower orders - of course you are wasting your time as the lower orders are not what they once were - grateful and thankful for their lot. You may be interested in researching one of the world's, greatest lost paintings Landseer's famous depiction of my great uncle Hubert Noteworthy-Smallcock Bart. crossing the equator - for it was who discovered the southern hemisphere. Were it not for he Wikipedia would have been denied all its Antipodean editors - and for information on those parts would be reliant on pygmies or whatever it the natives of those parts are called. The painting depicts Sir Hubert "in glory" surrounded by Brittania and an assortment of shot indigenous fauna - Sir Hubert was a great hunter! Without false modesty I can say he was one of Britain's most homicidal baronets.
Thus, I am surprised indeed that no Wikipedian has thought to write a page on my illustrious ancestor Sir Hubert Notworthy-Smallcock Bart. However, to pose, a more important, question - where is Landseer's Smallcock? It has not been sighted since 1941 where it was displayed prominently in the drawing room of my great aunt (Lady Noteworthy-Smallcock) in Berkeley Square - refusing to acknowledge Hitler's existence she defied the Blitz preferring to sit as she had always chosen to do sipping Château Margaux and Dom Perignon combined (a family recipe, wittily referred to as a Smallcock-tail) until a doodlebug ceased to doodle over Berkeley Square. Since that date my beloved aunt and the painting have not been espied again. A reward is now offered and if it appears on Wikipedia as a result of your appeal - that Jimbo Wales will be sued. yes Mr Wales that is a legal threat!!!! I want my Smallcock returned to me so that I may enjoy it in the privacy of my own home.
For example, in Hebrew, pet and petting are entirely different words; the latter, לטף, has to do with the gentleness of caressing, whereas the former, either חיית מחמד or חיית שעשועים, is translated as "cuteness" and "amusement animal," respectively. Respectfully yours, El_C09:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you think you could review this block and commentary by User:William M. Connolley. He has abused his administrative privileges by selectively blocking one person in a dispute to which he is an involved party. I would bring this up with an AN/I, but I want to give one shot at good faith, and ask someone uninvolved to review it. If I'm nuts, then so be it. But if WMC wanted to block anyone, I could provide a list (myself included) in this particular articles arguments. It appears that WMC was asked by one of the least civil individuals in the argument to review CO's commentary. Nothing about it seems fair. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I am happy for you to review this if you feel inclined. For myself, I believe I am not involved - see my talk page for more on that side of things. I invited OM to tell me of equivalent PA's by other editors and he has chosen not to do so. OM should probably have pointed out what you'll find very readily: that he is heavily involvedon CO's side William M. Connolley16:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations my dear on a charming little page very prettily written, one would hardly know the struggle you have with English grammar - I expect that nice handsome Italian boy helped you out what a talent he has! I've always found the Swedes a very cold race, I remember cruising in our yacht around the fjords seeing them queuing to emigrate a touching sight - allthough why they wanted to go to America is beyond me - England is so much nicer. As I said well done. Catherine de Bourgh (Lady)17:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
How kind, dear Lady Catherine. (And how kind, MONGO, thanks for the star!) Do I know a nice handsome Italian boy..? Perhaps you will introduce us? Anyway, are you sure those were Swedes queuing to emigrate? Lemmings, perhaps? I could have sworn all the Swedes had already left on the Stockholm-Lübeck-Hamburg route to Southampton, there to board the Titanic for New York, America. Bishonen | talk17:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC).
Don't speak to me of the Titanic - so many dear friends lost - of course I had my own life-boat, but I am still humbled when I think of the calm acceptance of those simple Swedes trying to climb aboard as my faithful maid Gunhilda hit them with her parasol explaining to them the value of my wardrobe stowed safely on board. However be assured I wrote a very stiff letter of complaint to the White Star Company on my return on their behalf - realising the gravity on the situation they sent me a free ticket for life which I feel must have been some compensation to the bereaved. Such are the trials and sugfferings of the highborn. Catherine de Bourgh (Lady)19:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Bad?... BAD? It is horrendous to think I have referred to Raul as a nice Italian boy, clean living and wholesome, I take it all back he is nothing of the kind - I am shocked to my core, I intend to complain to that nice Mr Wales - who is pressing me to join his charitable arbitration committee. Catherine de Bourgh (Lady)22:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh perverts I know all about them, my fourth husband was one of those - You young man are odious - quite odious, in a more enlightened day and age you would be horsewhipped - but I suppose you would quite enjoy that! Just wait until Mr Wales has put me in charge of recruitment your days will be numbered. Catherine de Bourgh (Lady)22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Apology
Hi Bishonen. I'm sorry if I upset you yesterday... as, indeed, I think I did. There was certainly no intention to do so. Without going into justifications and self-righteous posturing, I was somewhat bewildered by some of your comments and we all know how easy it is for silly conflicts to blow up here. Returning to first principles... I know you're "one of the good guys" round here, and I hate to think I irritated you. The issue's a non-issue and this is a sincere apology for any grief I caused. Cheers. --Dweller09:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I regret that Radiant has misplaced his (or is her?) temper; but you should bear in mind how irritating Tony can be. This edit alone would be enough to try a reasonable editor, and there are many more like it; and his edit summaries are a whole separate field of obnoxiousness. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson16:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
OMG you're not still harping on that "ploy" edit? Yes, I know Tony simmers up, but he also simmers down, as you suggested here. Btw I'm very sorry your fine article on Orion had such a parody of a FAC process. The behavior of that editor—you know the one I mean, currently being RFC'd—would be enough to turn me off FACing my stuff forever. :-( (In fact I've just come off a long FAC strike for a lot less, touchy as I am). Bishonen | talk17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC).
Hello. I've put together a template on the Restoration comedy of manners, and taken some of the play titles from the Restoration comedy page, and added a few more in my collection. However, some of the ones on the article page I don't know, so I was wondering if you'd have a moment to confirm whether or not they're comedy of manners, or just plain comedies written during that period. The ones I'm not sure about are:
What a nice box! Very attractive and useful, and I always like it when they're placed at the foot of the page. I'd definitely call those Restoration comedies of manners, yes. Sir Anthony Love is discussed a bit in Breeches role, btw. Bishonen | talk23:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen. I don't know if you watch this page in general or if you want to remain involved, but Radiant! is being totally intractable, even with your very simple version of the GNL recommendation.[42] Odd for an editor I've always found measured and willing to talk. Not sure how to proceed—I have a definite sense from the language that s/he's using that the reverts are going to continue. Marskell15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If you're right, I suppose he may eventually be blocked by somebody uninvolved for edit warring, as outlandish as words like "blocked" and "edit warring" sound in connection with Radiant. I've always admired his style, so I'm pretty unamused that he's ignoring all I say like some no-account trolling. Anyway. The uncharacteristic belligerence and impatience, which I've noticed in other ongoing discussions too, sound like he might be going through a patch of—I don't know (boldly commenting on the editor, not the edit, here)—burnout, maybe. I tried, anyway. Not much more I can do. Bishonen | talk23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC).
Yes, I've always found Radiant! rather radiant. Burnout or late-blooming bitterness (the complete change in Durin saddened me, as another example). But the GNL debate is full of surprises. This from Raul was a bit of a shock: "'He' is the correct English language word for the third-person gender neutral or undefined pronoun. That's what I was taught in school, and that's what they still teach in school" from an editor that I've gathered is under-30. Are there still syllabi that advocate masculine and masculine alone? Perhaps south of some latitude in the U.S.? Marskell10:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
.....and moving on to the Van Eyck, we find the first documentary evidence of Bishzilla's customary 'staring through the window, prior to laying waste to cities'......--Joopercoopers13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You're the first admin who's name appears at Talk:Kiev/naming so I deliver this request to your good hands. It would be a blessing for the project if Horlo would drop his request, but I think he is completely incapable of self control. - JehochmanTalk03:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
As for two-dozen speaker languages, I seem to have upscaled: I spent the last three months in a lovely mountain village in eastern Ghana researching a language spoken by about 10,000-15,000 speakers. Very busy currently (analyzing three-months worth of field work data is no easy task), but I do hope to at least fix that red link... — mark✎08:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh and only now I see that dready banner on top of this page — I do hope that you will feel better soon! Please take the picture above to be a suggestion for a proper health resort, rather than an attempt to make you jealous! — mark✎08:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your lovely sentiments on my talk page, I'll miss you and all the people that hang around your talk page.
I've been trying to get an overly long and verbose article of mine deleted, to no avail. [43][44][45][46] Do you have any advice? I thought Criteria 7 seemed quite clear cut and explicit - one of the admins even said the request did technically comply with the criteria, but just couldn't bring himself to do it. The article's rubbish as it stands - I'm quite happy to have it userfied, but I'm loath to leave it in mainspace in that condition. Cheers, --Joopercoopers08:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Reading the speedy policy. Check, such a case is covered. I'd rather delete than userfy, actually. AFAIK, there would be nothing to prevent anybody from moving it from your userspace back to mainspace—they wouldn't even need to be an admin—and I'd rather not move war about such a thing. (I'm willing to wheel war about the deletion if somebody undeletes, though—why haven't I had a wheel war yet? I can't be a real admin!) I assume you have a copy on your hard drive? OK, deleting. Three...two...one...zap! We have lift-off! Bishonen | talk11:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC).
Enormous thanks Bish, unfortunately, since leaving my message, I've been blocked, featured on the ANI and all sorts of various kurfuffles have occured (It's become a bit public) - you might have your head above the parapet now. Take care, --Joopercoopers11:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
There always is a bit of fiddling by other people, Ryan. Please go reread G7 as stated: it doesn't say there mustn't be any edits by others. It says the page is to be speedied if the author requests it in good faith, and "provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author." My italics. Joopers wrote the only substantial content. Honestly, Joopers, look me in the eye and tell me: do you have even half this much fun at Citizendium? Bishonen | talk11:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC).
It's like shutting the gate of the bazaar and walking into a paradisical garden of gentle manners and helpful loving smiles - so far. --Joopercoopers12:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh... I just realized. You meant you like the garden and the smiles..? [Walks cautiously backwards, feels for door with foot] Yes, of course, dear... quite right! Don't worry, the orderlies will be here in a jiffy! Bishonen | talk12:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC).
(outdent) Two instances of editors making a couple of extremely minor edits? No, no, Ryan. Joopers is the only author - comma faults don't count as authorship, nor do spelling corrections etc. Why are you being such a pain about this? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Adding: What precisely did you think you were preventing by that block? Blocks, I am sure you recall, are preventative, not punitive. KillerChihuahua?!?12:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little dubious about reinvoking the right to vanish, I must admit. Especially in the middle of an arbcom case where people may want to refer to edits there as evidence of this or that. Sorry. Please ask again when the case is wrapped up, I'll do it then. Bishonen | talk12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC).
I won't be around then. I'm leaving now, I've done what I came back to do. If you won't delete it now, please accept this as an instruction to delete it post-ArbCom per right to vanish. Thanks. One Night In Hackney30312:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's what it says. It's how he feels. It remains possible he'll feel differently later, I guess. There's no telling. Bishonen | talk15:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC).
I'm sorry if that remark offended you, but it wasn't you I was talking about. I generally consider you a wise and level-headed contributor. But I'm afraid I must have missed the questions or appeals to me you've posted at MOS and FAC's talk page. Looking through the history, the only one I can find is this one, which I assumed was a rhetorical question. To answer it anyway, no, I do not choose to appear as an ordinary fomentor of strife. I am trying to hold a discussion about the content of certain pages, but this is made difficult by people who continually shift the discussion to be about editors instead. Whether this is passion about a hot-button issue, or simply clever rhetoric, I am unsure, but it is frustrating. It would be nice to be able to discuss the MOS without being called a nazi, but I'm not going to run away from a dispute simply because people think ad hominems are the easiest way of winning a debate - which, again, does not refer to you. It's a nasty world in here, and if you have suggestions on how to deal with that or improve it, I'd be happy to hear them. Yours, >Radiant<09:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
We have to talk about you as an editor, Radiant! You're editing behaviour is seriously out there at the moment. The first edit you made to an MoS page today was to revert JayHenry on the template after he'd clearly explained why it's problematic. You're listening to no one. Frustrating? Yes, it is frustrating. Marskell09:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Marskell, you have lots of fora for the frustrations, including an open thread on ANI. Do you mind? I was trying to have a little communication. Bishonen | talk18:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC).
Kiev/Kyiv
I hope you are feeling better.
Horlo wouldn't drop his request, and now I've had to side with him because, although he's terribly irksome, he happens to be right. All official entities in Ukraine use Kyiv when writing in English, as do the United States and United Kingdom governments. Our Wikipedia:Naming conflicts page says that populated places get to choose their own name. This is an objective criteria, not subject to voting by editors, and not dependent on common usage. There are several POV pushers engaged in the debate so there's no way to achieve consensus. What's an editor to do? You created this page Talk:Kiev/naming, so you are the one who has to drive a stake through it's heart, shoot it with a silver bullet, or submerge it in running water. - JehochmanTalk15:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with this at all. "Kyiv" is not a term that exists in the English language as customarily spoken by English speakers. The basic rule of naming conventions is, as it should be, that we use the customary form of names where there clearly is a most often used form. Newyorkbrad15:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, all sorts of celebrities hang out here. :-) Newyorkbrad, please read the discussions and post your opinion at the page. If you check the websites operated by the United States and United Kingdom governments, every recent document on these websites uses "Kyiv", not "Kiev". When I first heard about this name change, I was extremely skeptical, but there seems to be a surprising amount of evidence in favor. - JehochmanTalk17:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on your comments I will take a fresh look, but I have to say that I never saw the spelling "Kyiv" in my life until a couple of weeks ago when I came across reference to this debate on Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad17:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Complete rubbish. The city is Kiev As pronounced and written in Britain and emulated by the Rusians or whatever the natives of those parts are currently calling themselves - the poor dear Tsar must be turning in his vault. As for you Bradley from New York - you have mail. Catherine de Bourgh (Lady)17:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
M'lady, I deeply regret that you have been exposed to such coarseness. Perhaps hot tea and scones would help restore your constitution? - JehochmanTalk20:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Quelle horreur! The city is Kieff as pointed out in, among others, Guide du voyageur à St. Petersbourg, ses environs immédiats et ses résidences impériales -- the names of the towns of Muscovy having been given in French, and for anglophone purposes quite properly kept there (A summer in Kieff; or, Sunny days in Southern Russia). There are, of course, those who venture to disagree about the representation of these "Russian" names, V. V. Nabokov among them. Incidentally, immediately above the entry for "Kiev" (sic) in the index of the later edition of his Onegin we see the line Khrushchev, see Hrushchyov (when the correct form is surely Hrouchtcheff). Dr Syntax -- 05:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
....and what has happened to poor dear Geogre, he is very quiet these days, you should listen more to him - he is very clever and wise. He would know the answer to these questions instantly. Catherine de Bourgh (Lady)17:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Err, I was wondering if I could get a softblock put on the IP I'm at right now, 24.224.240.191. It's a school IP, school started a couple of weeks back, and kids are just getting at the computers. The vandalism is gonna start coming in by the truckload. Just a thought. LychosisT/C16:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the tip. I can't really block until I see the trucks starting to come in, though, and they haven't yet. I'll keep an eye on it. Bishonen | talk17:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC).
It'd be a bit more evident, if the IP didn't seem to have changed since last year. They had quite a few blocks on their log, if I remember correctly. (Addition: I think it's this one that we used to use. Lots of blocks in it.) LychosisT/C03:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It works, now, but only if I first click to accept a temporary and "not trusted" certificate thingy. I expect it's getting back to normal. Bishonen | talk19:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC).
Bish, I have been thinking. I've been an admin since 14 January 2006, and no one has ever opened an Rfc against me. When is it my turn to get cupcakes? When do I get a chocolate cake from Geogre? Lollipops? Somethings wrong here, I'm sure I'm at least as rouge as you, probably even rouger. (redder? more rouge? ack! its a tart, too much rouge! I digress) I don't think its fair, somehow, that I haven't had my allotments of virtual desserts. When is it my turn? KillerChihuahua?!?23:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should mention the RfC [eats a cupcake], I was just doing that myself not one minute ago.[48] Paws off my food! Who taught you to beg at table, slayerpup? Bishonen | talk23:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC).
Hi, Bish. I've just noticed that Swedish emigration to the United States was promoted to FA a few weeks ago, and I never noticed it until now. Congratulations. I'm still disappointed that my favourite Wikipedian didn't contribute to it at all, though. It's hard to believe that an article that didn't merit her attention could be a first rate article. I've been a bit worried recently that she wasn't around much. (I can do without that silly little Poddie. I don't know how she puts up with him.) I had been wondering had she caught some strain of dino 'flu, or had she eloped with Muzzy. But I see she made an edit yesterday. I've recently found another cute, stripey little pet for her, so I've included it with this message. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)19:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Bishzilla also showed up to the Troubles Arbcom to volunteer her services as a troubleshooter. Personally, I wanted to ask her if she had a group rate to give..er.. "massages" to a certain group of editors ;) SirFozzie20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
She doesn't exactly put up with Little Stupid... Bishzilla has some good qualities, but maternal she ain't. Ah, massages! 'Zilla's Dispute Resolution Board And Swedish Massage Parlor ought to be the very place, but it doesn't seem to be very active. I don't think 'Zilla really expected it to need any running, she seems to expect it to just ...work, somehow. Would somebody like to help? Introduce a few instructions, a bot, transcluded pages for cases, that kind of thing? Bishzilla could still be the Raul of the place, if somebody else does the bureaucracy. [Puny 'shonen reaches absentmindedly for the Barbary striped grass mouse, stirring her mid-European meat stew.] Bishonen | talk21:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC).
Thanks, I didn't want to do that myself as the whole issue has become incredibly silly, and I want my involvement to be minimal. DrKiernan07:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to the ArbCom case. Your interpretation of the exchange compared to that of the involved parties is obviously different. In looking over the logs in their entirety myself, my opinion falls somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure it was any sort of underhanded deal to have two articles below GA standards be listed, but the end result was at least one article making the list that shouldn't have. I haven't looked over Dihydrogen Monoxides's article yet, but that's definitely on my todo list. Anyway, thanks again. Regards, LaraLove19:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would certainly have preferred to give more hard facts (=quotes) and less opinion and interpretation altogether. I found it awkward and difficult to summarize the exchanges at #wikipedia while not allowed to quote people (with the exception of Francis). But it doesn't really matter in your case, since you have the logs and can come to your own conclusions. Best regards, Bishonen | talk20:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC).
Personally, I'd like to see this page unprotected, at least on a trial basis. But I appreciate there may be very good reasons for it being semi-protected I don't fully know about. How about something at the top of the page telling anonymous users who have a real need to contact you to use User talk:Bishzilla or a subpage of this talk page? Neilム11:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Neil. Thank you for asking nicely. I did notice User:Until(1 == 2) suggesting the same thing on ANI [49], and thought it rather a good idea. But I admit I lost momentum when someone else then complained about how wrong it would be to "relegate" some users to a subpage and in any case I have "many tools".[50] I mean, if it's not even good enough... Also, perhaps more cogently, I'm pretty sure I would miss posts on a subpage (including Bishzilla). When my watchlist has almost a hundred new items at the top, as frequently happens, I do sometimes overlook changes to watched pages. Hmm. I have thought of sending anons on to a friend's page, so I'd get help in noticing new posts, but... well, I really don't want the guy bugging my friends, any more than myself. You know, every time I've experimentally unprotected, he has noticed it very quickly. It seems unlikely (how does he do that?), but is a fact. Oh... I see you reckon the world wouldn't come to an end.[51] No, very true, and a gracious thought. Bishonen | talk20:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC).
My problem! Expert needed
Can you keep an eye on this [52] I am out for the day, and the anon is now reverting useful information. God knows who he is, but it is now bordering on vandalism. If that image goes then so do almost all wikipedia's other 19th century fotos. Strange behaviour. We need an expert here. Giano08:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason why the Leonardo page remains almost permanently protected is obvious. It is accessed by kids all the time and vandalised all the time. Take a look at 28th-30th August. Also, since it's up for FAC, it's not exactly the right time to invite vandalism. .... but on the other hand... maybe some toilet humour would would liven it up a bit. By the way, whatever has happened to Lady Whatsername? : )Amandajm13:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
And I know school vandalism is up right now, too. But Leonardo really doesn't have more reason to be permanently protected than lots of other equally vandalized articles. I know it's on FAC—I'm just writing a review—but in a way, that is exactly the right time to unprotect, as more people than usual are watching it. Anyway, I do realize re-protection may well turn out to be called for quite soon, and I'm keeping a close eye on it (for today, at least). As for the formidable Lady Catherine, I believe she's currently busy in a sandbox composing a very lovely bio page of her fascinating life. I've kept well away—I don't feel it would be very safe, or courteous, to edit in her userspace—but hopefully she intends to move it into article space eventually, and then we can all chip in. (Indeed, I hope she means to nominate it for Featured article.) Best wishes, Bishonen | talk13:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC).
Yes, well I can assure you, Bishonen, that what she is putting up there merely scratches the surface. I could say a grreeat deal about her ancestry. She has mentioned remarkablly little abbout her connection with New South Wales and in particular, Port Arthur. There happens to be links between our families; quite a close links as a matter of fact, as a great great great grandfather of said lady was shackled to mine in one of the chain gangs that built the Parramatta Road. I wouldn't be so high and mighty, even if my mother had slept with the Prince of Wales. Her grandmother, as you may not be aware, was Lady Bracknell's parlour maid.
Thank you for your edits to Little Len... a definite improvement, even if you have removed some of my flowery prose. Did you know they have found evidence that he picked his nose with his left hand? I am feelingg a little ppissed off because I mmanaged to lose all the edits I made yesterday and will have to start again. The cite to the David is there already, but in the wrong place. I'll fix it. Amandajm01:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
GA
I started a thread regarding GA at the village pump here. I used the link to ARB evidence case you had provided at WT:FAR. Any comment on my village pump proposal would be appreciated. Cheers, Marskell13:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Chip images
Even being petted behind ear is not good enough for Commons dogmatism ("delete, see only back") El_C
It's somewhat interesting how the involved editors on commons say: 'why don't we take some time off from this so that everyone can cool off,' and then bombard me with messages. What can I say, I guess they really want my input und donations! El_C20:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks
This edit summary is not appropriate, you already knew that though. While your point may be valid, the way you made it was not. Please try to be civil, nasty comments will only make the situation worse. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because you have a point about Tony does not mean you can violate the no personal attacks policy. You say "Thank you for taking the trouble to let me know your views, but I don't share them", but these are not my views but the policy the community has decided on. As an admin you are expected to respect this policy, even if it is not a view you share. Civility applies to everyone, even long term editors such as yourself. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't give Until(1==2) attitude, Bishonen. He approached you in a civil manner and reminded you of WP:NPA. Even though you're an administrator and a long-time editor here, that doesn't exclude you from following Wikipedia policy. Nishkid64 (talk)14:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen any further violations of WP:NPA from Bishonen, so as long as she continues to follow policy, that should be good enough for all of us. She made an ill advised comment, and you reminded her of policy. Fine. Now drop it. - JehochmanTalk16:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The diff you provide does not show Bishonen renouncing policy. It simply says that she doesn't share your views. If Bishonen makes further policy violations, I will warn her myself and ask for a block if necessary. Nobody is beyond reproach for their actions, but once you state your piece, you need to drop it.- JehochmanTalk16:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Well that is sure the impression I got. I had hoped to talk this out, but since there is resistance to discussion in this matter, then I guess I will just have to keep an eye on things. Frankly I think things will go better if we talk about it instead of waiting for it to happen again, but I will drop the matter if Bishonen does not wish to discuss it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Until(1 == 2): Bishonen said that she did not share your views. Which views, we may ask: that her edit summary was not appropriate? That the way she made her point was not valid?
How you read that up into a threat to breach policy beats me.
You might find that other editors would be more recepitive to your admonitions if you were to hand them out in a more consistent manner. For example, based on the presence and absence of your warnings, you seems to think it is OK to use the terms "bollocks" or "wankery" in edit summaries, but not the term "fuckhead". I am not sure why that should be the case. I thought we were all admonished not be a fuckhead. Being reminded of such in appropriate circumstances is surely acceptable. -- !!??21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
And so Newyorkbrad's well thought out request drops soundlessly out of view. Folks, there is a little smoldering ember here, that may well go out if just left alone. Stop pouring gasoline all around it. Please. --AnonEMouse(squeak)22:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Please desist
Everybody's talking... except the hostess, I've been away all day. Until(1 == 2), you posted the reproach up top last night (in my timezone), prompting me to write a short response[53] (incidentally, it had a comment about your priorities which after all your messages you still haven't addressed—same point as I see User:!! making), and another from work today to your reinforcements that turned up a little unexpectedly. Then I didn't have time to check Wikipedia for many hours, until after I got home. From your pettish assumption here that "Bishonen does not wish to discuss it", I receive the impression that you resent my not standing by 24 hours a day to respond to your posts, but, well, that's not practically possible. Anyway, I was a little shocked at belatedly seeing your repeated posts to me and my friends (including one further unsolicited post to me on your own page, while you were still being civil, which seemed about proportionate to the perceived offense—why wouldn't that satisfy, now?), and at your alternation between menace ("Well an agreement to follow policy would accomplish that brad [=would stop you escalating the situation further].[54] and pout ("waiting for 'it' to happen again", my scare quotes).[55]). You seem to be past the point where you require any response from me to keep going, but I'll give you one anyway (one, yes, that'll have to do), since I believe you misunderstood my original reply. When I said I didn't share your opinion about WP:NPA, I didn't mean that NPA isn't policy (? sorry, but I'm genuinely floundering here, as to what you thought I did mean) or that I'm somehow exempt from following policy (qué?). I meant that I didn't agree I had violated WP:NPA. In my opinion I wrote factually and reasonably to Tony Sidaway, explaining what I considered the problem with his behaviour. I wrote "Don't be a fuckhead" as an alternative to the tired "Don't be a dick" locution (are you going to tell me you pester everybody who says "Don't be a dick" in the way you've been pestering me?) and particularly because of the page "What Makes a Fuckhead?" by David R. Kendrick, hosted by Tony's friend and powerful wikipedian David Gerard. I thought Tony would be bound to know about it. I don't know if you bothered to click on my link. The term is appropriately defined on that page ("A Fuckhead Must Refuse to Abide By Common Social Rules"... "A Fuckhead Must Never Back Down When Caught In A Lie"... etc.).
In a nutshell: I don't, myself, agree that I have "personally attacked" Tony Sidaway. I do think that you have attacked me today, through sheer bulk, insistence, and tone. I hereby ask you to stop posting to my page. It's unpleasant to keep getting the "You have new messages" banner, then finding yet another same-all-over-again-post from you. However, you're wrong if you think you can force me by such means to say something you would like to read. Bishonen | talk22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC).
Any further baiting by 1==2 will be removed and reported. He flatly aims at escalation of the conflict defending users clearly in the wrong and distressing Bishonen. There is nothing else here and his continued posts of the kind will be dealt with as such. --Irpen22:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I daresay if I called Irpen or Ghirla a "fuckhead" even in the most innocuous loving manner they would be all over me like a pack of wolves demanding my permanent banning from WP. More do as I say, not as I do. The "slander"ous diff appearing elsewhere is appropriate. There can only be ONE standard for behavior. — Pēters J. Vecrumba14:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Does no one click? Click the words when you see uncharacteristic terms. Read what you see when you click. Check who wrote them. Consider the context of their usage. Then formulate your opinion. I think "Don't be a Fuckhead" is wholly inappropriate, and I would love to see David Gerrard blocked if he refuses to delete the essay. 1==2 really should be bothering David Gerrard right now to get rid of that onerous insult. I think he should be trying to get people to block David Gerrard. Otherwise, he should use some damned common sense and try to find out what he's talking about before attacking another user. Peters J Vecrumba should, too. No one has called anyone a fuckhead. David Gerrard has hosting a wildly inappropriate and intentionally provocative essay, and Tony Sidaway has endorsed it. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so go gander at that. Utgard Loki16:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Except that David Gerard (only 2 R's, you obviously don't know him very well) hasn't done anything wrong. Essays are allowed to be provocative. That's why they're called essays and not guidelines. He certainly hasn't done anything blockworthy, and blocks are preventative not punitive. I would admonish you to not be a fuckhead, but having not read that essay in some time, I run the risk of misusing the term. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane.16:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
So, umm, if David Gerrard has never done anything blockable, and yet he did the essay with "fuckhead" in it, then how on earth is 1==2 going to get to block someone? Don't you understand the purpose of all these messages? We must have CIVILITY, and if you cite that essay, then you need to have civility, so it follows that David Gerrard must be blocked, and right away, before he leads anyone else to cite the essay. (Smart is good, Swtjester, but smarter is better.) Utgard Loki18:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Everything useful (if anything) done in months (if not in years) by David Gerard, Tony Sidaway, 1==2, NullC, Cyde and several other users from that buddies' group who know well who they are as well as all their other accounts (some don't have other accounts and some do) is by far outweighed by the amount of harm their activity is causing to this project. Not a single bit of content, some useful bot-writing (why not outsource this to geeky school-kids who would be even more enthusiastic in scripts but less interested in power games), a lot content editors FA writers pushed out through ill-advised blocks or harassment campaigns (Worldtraveller, ALoan, Bunchofgrapes, Geogre, I hope you read it one day. We miss you and your articles.) Bishonen was forced to quit several times, at one time even kicked out from #admins, whose culture she does not fit but composed herself and returned making more FA's. I won't appeal here to the decency of her detractors knowing that it won't work. But this talk page campaign stops now. Any further aggravating, taunting, snide remarks will be removed on sight and you can go discuss how to do a "clean kill" for that all you want. --Irpen17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
God! that was a lot of reading - 36 hours barely here and the world changes, except of course nothing realy changes - here - ever. I cannot see much very alarming on the wiki-pages - tony has been called a fuckhead, but then we have all known that for years and learnt to live with it - so, so what? I deduce the problem must be on IRC? (my wonderous powers of deduction have not failed me) so what has been going on there? - Bishonen appears to have switched herself off in disgust - so is anyone going to fill me in? - or shall I make my own investigations? Giano19:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I submit that no further action on anyone's part is needed and that the matter should be dropped. This is a postscript to a postscript to a controversial RfA and risks creating or heightening tensions for no useful purpose of any kind. (I know that my advice to feuding parties to please stand down is sometimes considered unhelpful, but please accept my view that my advice is particularly well-taken in this instance.) Newyorkbrad21:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Brad and submit to all parties to treat this thread as "archived". My last post, perhaps in a too eloquent form, said the same thing. Let's all just leave Bish alone and stop distressing her further on this matter. There would unquestionably be another high drama episode soon enough and those who need another drama opportunity would not have to wait long. --Irpen21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Damn, so it stopped... I actually rather enjoy reading those juvenile feud things like these. Kind of reminds me of unsophisticated Jerry Springerish stuff. Not of course that I ever watch material like that, but it’s probably still quite permissible to get my dose of it on an collaborate enlightening encyclopaedia? Well... maybe coming up: high drama episode II MDCCCII... Irpen promised. --Van helsing22:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It's the Talk page that is amazing to me. Did you know that the article would benefit from an infobox? Did you know that a photograph of the 11th c. writer "is needed?" Did you know that the average Wikipedian has the capacity to write, but apparently cannot read? Geogre10:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that the article would be improved by an infobox indicated whether or not he had breast implants, the nationality he belongs to now (hey, it could be Norway or Iceland... or maybe even Denmark!) so we can have the appropriate flag running down the right side of the screen, and we need to have a bibliography of his works with plot spoilers. There is no doubt that this article "may be improved" by a box. Geogre01:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I also found Category:Fires, with fires by location being fairly common. Such as library fires, and categories for airplane fires, school fires, nightclub fires, ship fires, train fires, and the rather inventive Category:Fire disasters involving barricaded escape routes (which adds theatres, factories, hospitals, and even a circus) to the list. No prison fires yet, though I'm sure there must have been some. Sadly, of course, these are all notable for the high numbers of casualties due to people being trapped in a confined space. Carcharoth10:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect done. Fires started by earthquakes are also a notable subcategory that hasn't been started yet. Ditto for wartime firebombing, though we have the article. Carcharoth10:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Now 203.102.161.75 (talk·contribs) has joined in (and has previously done so on one other occassion by the logs). This second IP looks like it may well be the work IP of our other friend based on whois/RDNS lookup and there's one other article in common between the two sets of contributions. I've gone straight to uw-vand4 as a result. David Underdown14:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Isps gate.jpg
You may recall that there was an issue about Image:Isps gate.jpg back in March. User talk:Bishonen/Archive 10#Image:Isps gate.jpg Basically, user:Sfacets created the picture and uploaded it under the GFDL. Much later, it turned out that the photo depicted an sign that contradicted a point he wante to make in the article it illustrates. Once that was discovered he sought to have the image deleted. At the time, you initially deleted, then agreed that a GFDL cannot be revoked. Sfacets didn't press the point further at the time. Now, he's seeking to revoke the GFDL.[56] There's no noticeboard to cover these situations, but I suppose it could be dealt with at WP:IFD as a special case. Meanwhile, I've initiated a discussion at Image talk:Isps gate.jpg. If you have any thoughts your input would be appreciated. ·:· Will Beback·:·05:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"Emoticon" sort of image for the hostess
SAY WHAT!!?
Dear Bishonen, a gift for the hostess from a random, uninvited guest, stumbling in on the heels of Hakurth and Geogre, sitting here still, dazed and bedazzled by what followed below the introductory, cute and cuddly picture gallery at the top. [Gulp]. With drama like that developing while you're out, it looks like you could use some other type of WP:TOOCUTETODELETE image in your animal gallery, something to have handy next time you come home to find stuff such as the "Personal attacks"-thread in your user space. So here's a "Say-what?"-image for you. Best wishes, Pia11:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC). PS. Congrats on the last FA. Well done!
Ops, did you put your message in this thread because of the image caption? I know it's none of my business, but I got curious enough to check on your work with Gustav...uhm, you two don't seem that close? Starblind's review of your work wasn't too inspiring either. You're sure posting here will Save Venice? Pia13:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh, thank you, Pia. A fine couple of defenders against the attack dogs ! I was just thinking of posting the poignant allegory on the left, with the big scary trolls menacing the infinitely touching little princess Bishzilla (who with her girlish tongue-in-cheek humour sometimes presents herself as a Tokyo-stomping prehistoric monster—can you imagine ?) Incidentally, sorry to leave your response to the now indefinitely blocked user:Save venice hanging, but I've removed their post. One does draw the line. Bishonen | talk15:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC).
Well, if you simply must glow, you should consider wearing clothes. Honestly, one might think we were interested in naked children or something, otherwise. A good solid sere tunic should be a practical garment. Geogre01:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Another image from the Bishzilla archives, titled "Creatures of the sea paying tribute to the power of Serenissima Bishzilla's finger, while she wrestles a ferocious kitten." Bishonen, Bishzilla is truly an expert troll whisperer! These creatures are practically eating out of her hand, as per the public relations shot supplied here. Sort of like how E.T. and Michelangelogive the finger: with radiant class. Utgard-Loki needs to abandon all thoughts of a possible she-tragedy rerun, pronto. This plot features nothing of the kind, only La Serenissima Bishzilla overseeing a troll's self-inflicted Death in Venice. Pia04:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Haha, there's clearly no limit to the variety of appearances this outstanding editor takes on, or to her powers. Support Bishzilla for admin! Bishonen | talk10:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC).
I support Bishzilla for president of the shebal (the "she cabal"), or whichever admin. position her sweet, innocent little heart desires. Go Bishz! PS. Sorry to have missed the in Bish/ʑi/lla. The non-PR approved picture of her face used at User:Bishonen/Bishzilla RFA temporarily paralyzed my ability to make the association to the happy face Shi (kana). (And, while I'm at it, I would like to propose to Amandajm that she considers getting ready to apply for the post as personal secretary and Prada flanel gown carrier the minute Bishzilla hits the top rank, because of her "ear to the ground" approach to trollish art activity and the speed demonstrated in traveling from Australia to Rome and back in time to post here before this thread is archived.) Pia21:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, well you can cuont me out, bee-cuase I dont hold with fflannnel nihgt-gowns and all that sort of stufff. I stilll where my seocnd-ex-hubsands old Koala brand pie-jammers. Somehting about this bloke in the pitcure below rmeinds me of somoene I once kenw well. I dont mean the geezer with the ffacail ffungus, the ohter won.
File:Sischap123.jpgAnother image from the Sistine Chapel archives, titled "Creator of the sky makes little jokles at expense of first man, while wrestling with first angry wife."
'This is what I found in the Middle of the Sistine Chapel ceiling when I went to look at it today. Some people simply have no delicacy whatsoever! Who do you suppose would do a thing like that? I just thank God that I was able to remove it before Lidy Cathering dropped by...... Amandajm12:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
A Silly Note from Jehochman
Ready to swab the deck!
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh!
"14 October 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) (6,114 bytes)
(Rv. Please settle on talk before removing this very telling image."
"I'm hoping Ludvikus will eventually see that it *illustrates* propaganda, as opposed to being *used as* propaganda.)"
The latest Reversion is by User:Bishonen: he restored the Propaganda Poster of Lenin.
He makes an excellent distinction (the above).
However, he fails to see that at the moment it is being improperly "used as propaganda."
The Poster is not discussed in the article.
It is not Sourced or Referenced exactly - it may be a pretty good hoax.
It does not "illustrate propaganda" - the article is not about that. The article is about the Chinese in the Revolution. There is nothing - at this stage of the article's life - which is benefited by the poster. Quite the contrary, it merely portrays the Chinese as the killers in the Russian Revolution.
I wish User:Bishonen would have explained how the Poster illustrates Propaganda before he had Reverted.
Well, *I* wish *you* had used Preview instead of bloating up my History and your own contribs with corrections. I wish you'd formatted the lines that are all screwed up. I wish you hadn't double-posted on both my page and the article talk (the article talk is where comments on editing are supposed to go). And I wish you had linked somewhere in your post to the article in question, so other people reading this page would have had a chance to know what you're talking about. Bishonen | talk20:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC).
Oxygen tanks are recommended for the New Beetle Kabocha Squash, Bishonen? Aha, the chinchilla is using the label to hide a bloated belly then. Somebody needs to add farting chinchillas to the list of issues affecting air safety today. Suggested fine print for the chinchilla label: NASA warning with image from inside the Beetle Kabocha Squash, showing passengers passed out on the way to the ball due to chinchilla fume toxicity. Pia02:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I copyedited a little and moved your section higher up, in the interest of the structure of the page as a whole. I reckoned it's logical to have the sections about different ways of creating diffs and links come first, and then finish with a section about how to put them into your text. Bishonen | talk23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC).
Do you know I really am becoming psychic, I know I'm always saying it but I think it is true. I wrote this yonks ago and forgot about, then when I became a "II" it was one of the pages I truly forgot about and never put it on my watch list - today I sudden;y and for no reason thought about it - and just look at the immediate edit history - it was my baby crying for me! These things cannot be explained!!! I think I will start telling fortunes on my page, there are already quite a few people's futures I can see quite clearly. Anyhow could you mind the baby for me, while I'm away for a few hours, when I get back I shall give it a few hundred footnotes and add to the "new place". Giano13:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Great... Scott..! [faintly]. The IP and the account appear to be the same, too. How many edits is that? [Bishzilla tucks baby article protectively in pocket of spiderman suit. ] Bishonen | talk13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC).
No problems, I have reverted myself so that you can easily sort it out. I left you a message on the talk page. Happy editing. Giano14:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
An exiting new series and category
I have decided to kick the ball off with the start of a new and interesting category on titled people here is the first The del Carreto Barons of Racalmuto. Should you want to help please select a redlink from here. Tha aim is to have the whole lot culminating with the present day incumbent. 15:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't give a rat's behind about "civility," because the term cannot be defined, much less put into practice, but I do believe in matching levels of politeness. Always start nice, I say to myself, but take a look at Talk:Ormulum. One hates to be vicious, but I really thought the whole thing was a put-on. No one would be so foolhardy, arrogant, and willful as to put a "cite" tag on a version 1.0 FA without bothering to read it or do some research, I thought. Utgard Loki12:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
My RFA
Thanks for voting on my RFA! Although ultimately it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback. I believe I've discussed the issue you brought up with you before, so I won't continue to do so here, however all I can say is I'm sorry that you thought that instance was enough to set off enough alarm bells that it would determine how you voted. I did not mean for that event to leave as big an impact on you as it did - and I did not think it did as I thought it was over fairly quickly (even though it did end somewhat bitterly), so again, for that I'm sorry. Perhaps if I ever decide to run again I will have had enough experience to override this unfortunate event and I can gain your support. Thanks again.--danielfolsom22:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if you could review what's been going on in the last few days on L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Misou(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has been edit-warring to delete references and links without consensus on this and several other Scientology-related articles (check out his recent contributions). Justanother also wants to remove the same links but is going about it in a much more consensual fashion by seeking consensus on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard. This seems a very obvious breach by Misou of the article probation. I can't take action myself, as I've been involved in editing some of those articles, but it seems like a fresh outbreak of the kind of behaviour that resulted in the original arbitration in the first place. -- ChrisO18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a GA now? Cool. I suggest it's time to take the hoax out, then. Don't you think so? Come on, you know what I'm talking about. Nobody believes there was ever a ship called "the Wetmore," you know. All right, it's pretty funny, it made me laugh. But it's over. Take it out, Lar. Bishonen | talk23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC).
My take on these texts are that they are close to "copy", i.e. commercial, and the most important thing is that they sound good. The choice might be between 100% accurate and awkward, and 90% accurate and smooth Swedish - then you go for the 90%. I am sure a professional translator could complain about style level and many such things. I think we should be happy if we manage to create texts that works for the purpose. You are most welcome to take a look at all of the texts, of course, but we are especially looking for help with the questions posted on the talk pages above. I have also asked the person who wrote the text, Sandra Ordonez, the Communications Manager of the WMF, and Bastique, the volunteer coordinator, since what happens in these matters I think is very much his domain. You don't have to do anything of course, but if you feel like chipping in, please do so fairly swiftly since this fundraiser thing will be launched soonish. // habj21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! It turned out the translations of these texts were cancelled, they won't be used... bah. // habj14:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect deletion request
Hi Bish, could you please do me a favor and delete these two redirects with the artificial history [59][60].
Those are the traces of some user's moving unilaterally a bunch of articles without even informally proposing at talk. I moved those back except these two since the redirect's history require the admin intervention. TIA, --Irpen21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[/Bishzilla fills pockets with the new, the small, the smaller, the smallest. Buttons pocket tenderly. ] Hi, El Commendante, you are the cutest! bishzillaROARR!!21:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
I should note that I use the word small both as a descriptor and a generic name for all the chippies. An average conversation ensue thusly:
Me to squirrel: Okay, I'll give you this peanut. Now go forth and fetch me small!
Oh, sorry about the page. It's the rabbits, I expect. I do archive quite frequently! Yes, I do disagree, I think it's an inherently POV name. But that's not the reason I closed as "delete"; I merely thought deletion was the result of the debate. If you feel strongly about creating the redirect, you'd better take it to deletion review. Regards, Bishonen | talk23:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
We disagree then. I think a redirect from a POV name to NPOV DAB page is OK. However, I don't think I feel strongly enough to stir up a new debate. I do like the rabbits though. Thanks, SmokeyJoe05:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It is, of course, not an innocent search term. It's a term in use specifically by one group of people. A redirect is a nice way of handling these specialized points of view, in general, if those points of view won't overwhelm the target. Given who the specialized group is, in this case, I rather suspect that "Ethical issues" would very, very soon get the full weight of those persons tipping the article over, capsizing it into the seas of POV war. Probably right to delete, if that will actually deal with the problem. Utgard Loki11:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
How about boasting, is that ok? Then I'll just mention that 'Zilla has plenty of room for more rabbits and their friends and fans in her pockets now, after summary eviction of teh little godking. Bishonen | talk12:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
Maybe you should direct User:MER-C to the WP:SDG. My own deluxe RFA nomination from Sarah was replete with diffs. Athaenara is really wonderful and thorough. Her unfortunate interaction with Justanother is an exception from the rule, but I'll let others present evidence if they wish. At the moment I am very busy with other things. - JehochmanTalk17:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not that I don't believe you, but what flummoxes me is that any diff I click on—any one presented in the RFA so far—seems to be an exception to the wonderfulness rule. I hope somebody else will present diffs where the being wonderful manifests itself, because I'm a little weirded out by the strangeness. I'd be glad to support, if I could find a reason to. You know—a reason with diffs. Bishonen | talk18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
The talk:Subtlety thing really gets to my last nerve, I must say, because I've been there. I've been at the computer, having compiled a mass of information from the DNB,Grove Dictionary of ___, whatever web links look useful, and then had someone tell me that the article should be all about X or Y. Well, that's an odd thing to hear, when one is taking such care, but then, of course, "You don't own the article, and I say it should be about what I want it to be about" gets used instead of argument, instead of discussion, instead of compromise, instead of, frankly, cooperative editing, which is supposed to be what we're about. So, when I see something like that, someone who as a regular user would try to bully and bluff to get her way, I wonder what the odds are that, with the block button, she wouldn't invoke an acronymn and block, invoke an acronym and protect, etc. Geogre10:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Long time, John, hi! Are you sure? "Be polite" (on the talkpage) raises a red flag, certainly... but I don't see anything else obvious. Then, admittedly, I stink at this, being as I am a credulous fool. Bishonen | talk21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
Please, whoever you are, I just want to be left alone, and if you check my recent history I am not prone to "edit-warring." I see that you like to edit certain types of articles, I will stay away from what you have been historically editing. I'm focusing on getting some articles up in quality on the project. But I do not like the speculation about who you think I am. I have received some personal threats off-Wikipedia, and that is all I am going to say about that. Goodbye. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage21:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
Please, I beg of you Bishonen (talk·contribs), kindly ask this other user to leave me alone. If there are any future conflict or concerns, do not hesitate to message my talk page. But at the moment, there is zero "edit warring" or anything of the kind going on, save for my own talk page. Due to my own personal safety issues off-Wikipedia and various contacts I have spoken with regarding personal threats, I do not wish to disclose anything at this time. Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
Yes, please can it, John. There is no rule about disclosing alternative accounts.[61] They only become your business, or mine, if they're used disruptively, for instance to vote twice or to evade the 3RR. Bishonen | talk00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC).
Indeed. And I consider reverting articles back to preferred versions that are months old to be disruptive. You might recall how quickly (and inappropriately) Smee created all the sock puppet pages for me. Now it seems a different set of rules are requested from said editor.
For the record, I have no intention of creating sock puppet pages, however it's also important that this information be available when the RFA is presented. Over 3000 edits in a single month? Reverting articles to 'preferred' versions?
A quick check of the edit history of this 'new' persona will either reveal someone with an IQ of 2000-3000 (if they can begin editing and produce 3000 edits and be this familiar with the rules in their first month) or someone who is a previously established editor who knows all the ropes. There can be no argument that this is an experienced editor. The rest of the edit patterns, articles, edit comments, and attitude clearly establish the identity. Look at all the 'overlapping' contacts involved. Can you say DYK Barnstar?
The fact that s/he is watching your page (or my edits) is also a bit odd, if it isn't User:Smee re-incarnate. The fact that s/he is watching Smee's page and REVERTED a post within minutes, is also a bit odd for someone who claims that I'm mistaken.
Personally, if I wanted to hide, I'd be HAPPY for someone to come along and mistake me for someone else.. misdirection is a great way to stay hidden. The fact that my suggestion received the reaction that it did, simply adds merit to the claim.
Bishonen (talk·contribs), I got your email, and thank you. I hereby apologize to Lsi john (talk·contribs) for reverting to older versions of articles he had edited, from a version of: "Smee". I cannot go into details but a friend of mine off-Wiki and fellow Wikipedian did indeed receive some threats at her place of work, from someone who she said, and I trust her, had found out her identity on Wiki. This indidivdual called up her employer, and tried to have her fired by complaining about what she was doing online. Needless to say what she had told me was very frightening. This is all I will say about this. Lsi john: I hope you can understand that I am sorry about the reversions to some of the older versions of articles you had edited, under my first contribs here as Curt Wilhelm VonSavage. I will not do this again. But please, I wish you to stop this harassment you are doing. Bishonen has explained why you may feel angry, and I can understand that too, but this is not about anyone avoiding any blocks or anything like that, as you can see we are not debating this from WP:ANI or WP:ANI/3RR or anything like that - you have even made recent reversions to some pages that I had reverted when I first got here as Curt Wilhelm VonSavage - and I have ignored them. This is moreso about private concerns of mine for myself and my friend's identities off-Wiki. I hope you can understand, and you have a right to be angry about those first few reverts/contribs of mine. Yours, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage19:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC).
I am sorry to have been such a jerk, but there are bigger issues afoot. I did leave Penwhale a clue. If it happens again, you can point to that diff. The reason I was a jerk is that you were laying down sucker tracks for other, clueless admins to follow. - JehochmanTalk10:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
"Sucker tracks" are what expert skiers leave behind when they ski a nearly-impossible slope, and then some stupid newbie follows the tracks down and falls off a cliff. - JehochmanTalk10:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear me, don't give it another thought. You're ascribing too much importance to the whole thing. As for Penwhale, who just shot himself in the other foot (ANI? What ANI? I asked on IRC !), I do believe I could manage a discussion with him without referring to your authority. Bishonen | talk18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
Well, I think you should give it another thought. Bishonen is being far too charitable about this, and, I for one, expected more from you. El_C19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I rather think Bishonen is inferring that you attach too much importance to yourself, Jehochman. The words "your authority" have just a tiny hint of sarcasm don't you think? As always poor dear little Mrs Bishonen has failed in her never ending, and very worthy, crusade to promote wikilove. Giano23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, no, a redlink... and with me being already so tempted to unclip the monster's leash and send her gallumphing towards the election page! But guess what? It can't be. You must have 1000 edits to run. I checked her edits today,[62] and was amazed to discover that she only has a total of 281 of 'em. ;-( I know those edits are pure gold... but it's going to mean her candidacy will be briskly removed by, oh, say... well, never mind, you and I can probably both think of a few users who would take delight in the opportunity. I think I won't give them the pleasure. Bishonen | talk21:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
Alas, I suppose we'll just have to live with and love 'Zilla's special brand of wikijustice in an unofficial capacity. But perhaps this link will turn blue instead??? --SGTTex15:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I was about to say that I enjoyed both, but in the latter I'm stumped by "chillin". I think I know who to ask. -- Hoary23:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
What a crock. Get this, even if I could talk 'Zilla into running for ArbCom (I tried talking some sense into those folks here), I couldn't even vote for her. Someone decided that you have to have 150 mainspace edits to be able to vote. Even though I've been around for almost 2 years, being a lurker, I don't have that many edits. Still, I think she should run. --SGTTex20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments requested
Heya - your comments on ANI about the Davkal situation motivated me to propose this. Any contribution you can make would be quite appreciated. Cheers, Skinwalker15:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Lo2u. I'm not sure about your removal of the word "holocaust" in the Great Fire of London. You have a point, certainly. I sense that the word is getting less likely to be used in the original, general sense, and more to be treated as a "name" for the Jewish holocaust. (Though then surely with a capital H?) Anyway, I just thought I'd mention that it's in my source; it's the way Hanson puts it. (So I could use a longer Hanson quote that included it, but it would mean going back to the library...) Anyway. I'm in two minds about the appropriateness of the word. Bishonen | talk08:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC).
Hi, I've no strong objections. It wasn't just the WWII connection that made me think it was inappropriate. I wasn't sure it was quite the right word - not exactly wrong but (a bit like "survivors of the slaughter" or "survivors of the quagmire") in this non-literary context it jars because it's not standard vocabulary. Not sure I'm explaining that very well. Anyway, if you want to put it back I will understand - I don't want to create lots of work for something this small. --Lo2u(T • C)17:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi to you both. I again reverted back to "holocaust." The word has a very basic definition and the usage will hopefully be understood in the context of the article. The term was used for this type of disaster long before it was appropriated for the Jewish Holocaust, and will be used again, I'm sure. The recent California fires come to mind. As for not being standard vocabulary? Well, that may say more about our current school system than anything. I will not revert again, if you two decide otherwise. Best........... WBardwin20:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello there, W. I'm conflicted. I thought "holocaust" expressive and appropriate when I wrote it—a reminder of the scale and the terror of the destruction—and the Hanson book, that used the word in the context, is from this millenium (2001), so the usage is presumably current. I think it's generally a pity to remove color and force from the narrative, like the IP who keeps changing conflagration to fire in the first sentence. (What's wrong with him? The "great fire" was a "major fire"? Yeah, well, you know, it probablywas...) It's not unencyclopedic to use strong words about extraordinary events IMO, it's actually more precise that way. But I dunno about the holocaust. I guess there are further considerations there. I'll leave it to you guys. Bishonen | talk20:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC).
I like both holocaust and conflagration, they are good descriptive English words, and I would vote that they stay in the article. This is particularly true as your source, Hanson, used the word holocaust. (Sigh) ----- it seems to me that the internet has led to, among other things, the "dumbing" down of English vocabulary. Words of one syllable are faster to type and even easier to "text" abbreviate, and so............ WBardwin20:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I would say that it is impossible to use the term "holocaust" innocently. One can campaign to reverse the proper noun associations, one can insist on a general meaning, and be lexically correct, but I would say that it has a place only when one is trying to freight the description, to say, "Consuming all life, sacrificing needlessly thousands." It would be proper in a passage attempting to build heavy emotion, but it cannot be innocent of the ties with The Holocaust. The question is whether one wishes, in this place, to create such an emotional landscape, to try to create that level of vividness. If the word's associations grow so strong that they prove to be static rather than signal, that they distract rather than convey a complex denotation, then it's best to sacrifice the word. "Conflagration," on the other hand, is innocent. It's not even a "hard word" (except for the hard headed, and one hopes we never write with them in mind). Geogre21:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I almost used the word holocaust in a page recently because it was the right and legitimate word to use but as I typed it all I could think about was concentration camps and gas chambers. My thought is that the word holocaust with or without a capital letter is in many people's minds inextricably linked to those foul events. So probably less complicated to simply avoid using it. Just my personal view. Giano01:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Don't worry. I won't revert again :-). Just a more detailed explanation of why I removed the term:
I think Hanson's use, reproduced in the article, is rather eccentric. I don't object to "hard words" and I don't mind a bit of colour either. I dislike the word in this context because, though colourful, it's out of place. "Holocaust" is never just a synonym for "fire" or "big fire". When it does mean this, it's a simile or metaphor for "burnt offering" - it's either highly poetic or sarcastic or humorous. In this article it's been used in a matter-of-fact way as if it's interchangeable and so it looks clumsy. --Lo2u(T • C)02:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I hope you're recovering from the flu. Could I just ask about this revert, please[63]? I agree it's not offensive. I did struggle to believe it though. Does Hanson give an actual source for his claim? At this time the poor didn't have much access to low fibre carbohydrates like white bread and they ate little sugar. Their teeth ought to have been reasonably healthy. Just for the sake of later comparison, this study[64] of dental hygiene in London is of people buried nearly a hundred years later. They aren't necessarilly poor but their diets were most likely worse. Hygiene is bad here but not in a no teeth way. If it's likely Hanson's assertion is merely an assumption, I would argue that little would lost if this were removed: "Teeth alone might have resisted such temperatures, but the poor seldom had any."
--Sorry - forgot to sign Lo2u(T • C)05:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've always thought it had to be a bit exaggerated, about the teeth. The sources I used are — well, they're the full-scale books that exist about the Fire — they're labors of love but not, as far as their sourcing and research strike me, actual academic works. Even the Roy Porter is sort of popular. (The exception is the amazingly painstaking and thoroughly researched Reddaway, about the rebuilding after the Fire. Absolutely fascinating.) There's a review of Hanson here, that gives a fair account of his use of primary sources. The reviewer doesn't seem to find Hanson's "novelistic" overlay as deeply irritating as I personally do... but there's also nothing misleading about that overlay, it's easily detachable. OK, as for your question, does Hanson give a source about the teeth? Truthfully...I don't remember! I can't think, I have the flu! Get rid of the suckers! It's actually not the first time they've been challenged, and the important point stands just as well without them: that the destitute people sifting through the rubble weren't archeologists with an interest in bone fragments, or teeth. They were looking for valuables. It didn't make any difference if there were teeth or not. Please change it. Bishonen | talk11:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
Because you're not listed as an "involved party' in the Ferrylodge arbitration case, I wanted to notify you that you are mentioned in one of the remedies included in the proposed decision. You are free to comment on the proposed decision talkpage or other usual places. (Notification by the Clerk; not commenting on the merits of the decision.) Newyorkbrad15:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my RfA, it closed today with a final tally of 39 supports, 1 oppose and 1 neutral. As always, if you ever see me doing anything which would cause you to regret giving me your support, let me know. I do appreciate your comments, like any proper Swede, conflicts aren't something I seek out. But I'm from Norrland, we're notoriously calm, so I hope I'll weather the storms the buttons may bring. henrik•talk18:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You may be surprised! I've acquired the most improper-Swede demeanour here. You too may come to enjoy the smell of gunpowder in your Norrländska nostrils! Good luck with the buttons. Bishonen | talk20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
Huh. You Swedes would have an easier and more pleasant time licking out your sacrificial bowls than donning the mop in the face of vandalism and succeeding in clearing the backlogs. I expect that the trolls will not need to fear you horse eaters. Haukur22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You're the tops - "I'm Mussolini, you're Mrs. Sweeney."
Bish, I hope you get well soon. While ill, please consider switching your narcotic. Wikipedia is not always good even for healthy people but for the sick ones it is a no-no. So, instead, switch to Glögg. I know for a fact that it helps to get through the sick times very well. Get well soon with it! --Irpen17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Bishzilla unfortunately very sensitive to flu. Brought special prairie-dog-size flu virus with her from mesozoic era in pocket of spiderman suit. Silly girl! Bishonen | talk16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
A prairie dog-sized influenza. It can be beaten by sneaky leukocytes.File:Giano'patentcureforflu.gifMy own cure for flu: Mix one measure of Bombay Sapphire, to one sachet of lemsip, top up with Dom Perignon and drink in bed with television, a good book and electric blanket. Remain in bed drinking this delicious cocktail for at least two weeks after whuch symptoms will miraculously subside and all sense of feeling and distress will leave the body. Giano14:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Some white blood cells to beat up the 3D prairie dog flu. Feel free to duplicate this image until all the flu is out the flue. Geogre22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Alice, I was just smiling at that edit summary--perhaps the single most graceful thank-you note I've ever received for unblocking and defending someone! Pity Perspicacite doesn't have e-mail enabled, or I'd write and tell him how much I appreciate it. (I'd naturally rather not add more deletion-fodder to his nice clean page.) Bishonen | talk20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
I'm brand new here and you may not be familiar with my inscrutable asian ways - is there a template or emoticon one can add when you wish your comments to be taken at face value: ("And in this case, Perspicacite was being gleefully taunted on his talkpage, the only page he can edit, by Alice."). Because of my career, I like to pride myself that it is very rare that I get into conflicts with people - but I do know it is so very easy to mistake someone's "tone of voice" in cyberspace - especially as I can't wear one of my usual "real-life" "uniforms".
For example, I think I detect a note of irony when you say "perhaps the single most graceful thank-you note I've ever received for unblocking and defending someone" and I smiles - but, of course I could be wrong since we tend to do irony in a different way.
Please get well very soon - and no need to reply if you're not up to it.Alice.S 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake
Sorry about my misplaced admonishment, I have retracted my statement[65]. I misinterpreted what had happened. Thank you for correcting me. Get well. 1 != 220:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. I don't know if you regularly go to PR but this is a well watched User talk, so I thought I'd post here. Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers was started today in an effort to reinvigorate the process. Discussion was here. Volunteers under Arts and Language and literature most welcome. Best, Marskell18:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
DreamGuy
A bowl of homemade chicken soup. Because it is simple to prepare, relatively cheap, nutritious, and easy on the digestive system, chicken soup is a good food for winter convalescence.
Hi, Bish, I hope you get well soon. Please let me know if you think I've been unfair. El C is up in arms. (Heh, that's appropriate for a revolutionary.) DreamGuy was caught red handed sock puppeting and edit warring. I really wanted to protect the guy and see him succeed, but when he is so blantant, right underneath my nose, I can hardly ignore it. Do you think he should walk, or should he face the consequences of his actions? - JehochmanTalk00:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You wanna make me cry ? I have commented on ANI. ( :-P ) I'd have more of an opinion if I could understand a word of the thread, but it doesn't seem to be the day for it. Ask only very easy questions, please. This is the right level to aim for today. Bishonen | talk00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC).
The 2007 Spumoni Arbcom campaign road-show. Bishonen's elegant salon is known as a place of wit and sophistication
I think this thread is now overlong and in need of removal. Bishonen our gracious hostess is, as we all know, a very urbane creature, in fact her elegant salon is known as a place of wit and sophistication rather than a forum for vulgar political debate. With that view in mind I am removing all mention of "Bradley from New York" as if it remains it can only be a matter if time before he and his (more rustic) supporters begin to stick bumper stickers and such like onto our charming hostesses tiara. A desecration that cannot be permitted. We all know Bishonen is very Baroque in her views for the new Arbcom and when the time comes to vote will choose the true and only path. Giano23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
KScottBailey and that Rfa
You might want to go ahead and give some sort of warning. He is now canvassing people who oppose to change their votes. See my talk page for the message he left. Jeffpw21:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm honestly curious: how is citing incivility in the opposes a "personal attack", yet those same opposes get to pin that and much worse on the candidate with no similar citation? And as for disruption, it was my impression that discussion was encouraged at RfAs. That mine was counterproductive has become clear, but I hardly think it constitutes "disruption", unless I read the rules of how an RfA works wrong. If you wouldn't mind clarifying what your note at he RfA is referring to, as well as how saying some of the opposes contained incivility, I would really appreciate it. Regards, K. Scott Bailey22:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly. In the first place, you were making it so generally unpleasant to oppose Van Tucky that people would, humanly, be likely to start hesitating to draw your attention by saying what they think. Discussion is indeed supposed to be encouraged in RFAs. You were discouraging it. That's disruptive. As for your jumping in to heartily agree with Epbr123 (who has enough problems with community interaction without you cheering him when he makes personal attacks, please see my note on his page) that "some of the admins who have opposed this RfA" have major "incivility issues" themselves... that's a very interesting claim. I meant to ask you to give diffs for it, but now I see that you're not referring to any generalized civility issues these admins are supposed to have. (And I ask you what I asked Epbr123: did you know which of the opposers are admins? Did you look it up, before attacking that specific segment of Opposers?) You were simply talking about the Opposes themselves being incivil—the wording, the claims. That should simplify it. Please specify which of them contain incivility in your opinion, because I don't see it. They all seem to me well within the territory of people expressing their considered opinion of the candidate's suitability for adminship. It's admittedly rather difficult to say, as is the essence of an Oppose, that "I don't think the candidate will suit" in an amiable, pleasing, or complaisant manner. The subject matter precludes it. But it looks like people did their best to not be unnecessarily acerbic, and certainly not, in my opinion, incivil. If you can give me examples to the contrary—especially of the people who in your opinion "pin that and much worse on the candidate with no similar citation" — perhaps there might be hidden depths of coded rudeness which I would miss, as not being a native speaker? — then please do, and I will do something about it. I detest incivility. Bishonen | talk23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC).
Thanks so much for the quick response, and for the clarification. Without sifting through that whole mess again, one that springs quickly to mind is the accusations of "intransigence" which brings to mind a complete willingness to compromise or admit one's mistakes. When VT tried to defend himself from this charge by posting examples of times he has, in fact, compromised and admitted mistakes, he was told by Alison that he had "missed the point" or something like that. There are others, in which VT's defenses of himself were construed as further evidence against him, but I've retired from the discussion, and really don't wish to dive back in again, even in attempting to prove that VT has been treated unfairly. K. Scott Bailey23:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Swift reminds us that the ancient Greeks would allow a satirist to name any particular bad actor, as it was a public service to do so, but they expressly forbade generalized attacks on cities or classes of person or, worst of all, mankind itself, as that could never do any good and could only provoke rancor. The facile and amazingly pompous "better than the incivil admins" comment was just the sort of comment that cannot do any good. First, it tries to say that another person being "incivil" (the word should be "uncivil") is an excuse for a new administrator exhibiting different vices. Second, it throws "civility" around as if it were the paramount crime, when, in fact, there are times for drawing a hard line against specific individuals who are doing things that specifically harm the site, and "civility" must never, ever be understood as "politeness" or "niceness." Third, it is one of those cheap, theatrical comments that everyone can apply to someone else and no one can apply to himself, and therefore it cannot ever catch the proper targets. It was a wretched comment and betrayed a very cheap intellect or extremely derelict rhetoric. To then come along and say "hear hear" was, first, bad judgment and, second, absolutely inappropriate, as votes at an RFA are not platforms for casting aspersions, demanding defenses, or launching prosecutions or defenses. Geogre02:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Aye! So well argued, that I would plaster this in an essay to refer people that make these same type of comments in RfAs. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)
First, I enjoy anyone who can bring ancient greece into a modern-day discussion. Second, I was with you, right up until you made the "RfA is not" type comments. RfAs are intended to be (or at least I was under the impression they were) places for discussion, often vigorously done. Was the "incivility" comment poorly played? In retrospect, certainly. Was it a "personal attack"? I don't agree. Should I have left my comment? Unequivocally, no. I was admidst and entwined in a discussion from which I could not untangle myself. I made a poor decision, and have since deleted the comment. I do thank you for commenting though, as your thoughts were well-written and quite entertaining, right up until the point you called RfA a "vote." Regards, K. Scott Bailey18:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, they are votes. It's so wearisome to see the repetition of this fundamental misunderstanding and triumphalist cry. The RFA is not a vote. The supports and opposes are a vote. In other words, many votes together determine consensus or the lack of consensus, and this consensus is not "a vote," and yet it can only be determined by many votes. To have any brittle temperament jump about shouting, "Not a vote, and you called yours a vote, so it's not a vote" is just plain tiresome. Indeed, whatever user K Scott Bailey has done, I voted. I voted in an exercise that is not "a vote" ("a poll to determine first past the post or simple majority"), and the user's words here only further indict his or her understanding of how RFA works, how our procedures operate, and why we say things like "not a vote" and yet refer to our "votes." Geogre11:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree. (Not sure if I am disagreeing or not) If it were not a vote then each "support" or "oppose" would need to be accompanied by diffs supporting the statement of support or oppose and each supporter or opponent would have to come up with unique diffs. That system would give the 'crats material to make a decision (after all, if it is "not a vote" then the decision would not made by plurality or even supermajority of the general Wikipedia population but by the 'crats). Nah, what we have is a bunch of "voters" in the support section and then a few opponents that provide diffs and argument to try to sway enough voters to join them in the oppose section. So while you, George, may not be "voting", most others are, IMO, and the outcome is determined by whether the nom is supported by a supermajority of VOTERS. --JustaHulk15:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.
Indeed, recover soon. The first thing that came to mind was sending a signing get well telegram, but well, I don't know where you live. So here's a link to the Ferris Bueller's Day Off version. Now just ignore that that was meant for a male and uh, well, get well. :) - TaxmanTalk15:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Still can't log to email. There were serious complications in the end. Out of commission for the foreseeable future. Should be fine though. Love, El_C17:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, no! Hun-nee! :-( And no e-mail? I guess that tells me where you are. :-( Rest up, eat good drugs, sleep, feel better! Is somebody bringing you those good brownies and stuff ? Bishonen | talk17:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC).
Oh God it's like Warsaw here too, never mind - I just came to say thanks [66] for the copyedit. It is a very pretty page! Giano22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That was a string of bad lucks Oh well, thanks to the magic of antibiotics, I am on the road to full recovery (weeks rather than months). El_C08:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Could use eyes
Bish--you probably remember me as the anti-badsites lunatic-- but HOPEFULLLY you remember as the reasonable editor you helped out last year and who "love bombed" you in response for your kind help.
If you have a second, could you look over an RFC I'm running over at Purgatory. It's a nice friendly crowd-- way less stressful and intense than last year. :)
I've done a rewrite, and could just use a doublecheck on my math, to make sure I took the page in the right direction. --Alecmconroy09:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it a shot as soon as I have a moment, Alec, even though I'm still reeling from your OD guys and their wild and crazy edits. Bishonen | talk19:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC).
Posted to ut:alecmconroy
Aw, gee, Alec, the whole of Purgatory? The old version and the new version? And you have the ... the brass to ask me to reply to the RFC if I have a second? I have to admire that... and it's an interesting comparison for sure. But you're going to have to tell me some particular extracts, seriously. (I'll do the lead sections in any case. The old version is fascinating, not in a good way.) Bishonen | talk23:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC).
Awww-- I'm sorry. I don't mean to be particularly brassy.
The thing I would tell you focus on would just be the "writing style". There may well still be plenty of specific issues that still need fixing, polishing, and balancing in the new version, but my main concern was that the old version was probably too filled with unexplained jargon to be comprehensible to a general audience. My rewrite basically tried to present roughly the same information as the old version and have roughly the same POV as the old version, but in a way that everyone could understand. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
So, for a nice representative edit that was part of the rewrite, see this rewrite of the "prayer & indulgences" section. [67] It did introduce some POV issue that later required balancing, but it's a good example of the spirit of the whole thing-- taking complex, dense, detail text and simplifying it down to its essentials. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I only see you state it on the IP's talkpage, not explain it, and I'm afraid I don't understand it. Please explain it to me. Do you mean the sig in the top post as seen in the diff is forged? In what sense? The whole post including the sig is by Durova, surely, isn't it? (It can be seen on the left in the same diff, further down.) Bishonen | talk16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
That is not an explanation. Please try to respond to my specific questions about the diff. Though I see you have already reverted me. I guess I was wasting my time trying to talk with you. Bishonen | talk16:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
Let me try again to explain. Yes, you are right, the Durova post is moving up from below. The problem is that the IP is blanking other people's comments: [70][71] Sorry, I was confused about how to describe the problem, but it was a problem nonetheless. - JehochmanTalk16:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the deletion of others' comments, restored the IP's post and unblocked the IP, and left him a welcome message and a caution not to blank talk page posts. I think it's all sorted. Thank you for your help. - JehochmanTalk16:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Majorly, who did not pass RFA, still managed an image deletion, it seems, and then a -bot broke Oroonoko by deleting an image you uploaded. It "was missing information," you see. What information? No idea. Here is the lovely diff. Oh, how I love the -bots overruling the humans, how I love the Commons freaks breaking articles. Geogre (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Geogre: The image was deleted on Commons. Usually this causes a red link. Since the image was on both enwiki and Commons, it removed an image that was still there. Obviously the image wasn't deleted. Majorly was deleting an image that someone else marked as no source information on Commons. There's also no need to refer to people as "Commons freaks". Please try to assume good faith of other editors.Cary Bassdemandez20:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Notified the bot maintainer here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Siebrand#Bot_bug, hopefully this will be fixed. Note, this bot was designed to make the Wikipedia experience better for all people by removing redlinks to removed images. I'm sure the image itself is out of copyright anyway because of its age, but apparently the person who uploaded it to Commons failed to indicate an appropriate source when uploading. Cary Bassdemandez20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Was that me? I didn't know about indicating sources in those days, it was a long time ago. As far as I remember, we used to simply get told to add the right tag. PD-old or PD-art, I guess. I don't feel it'll make the Wikipedia experience better for everybody if my old Commons uploads are deleted without warning. :-( (There was nothing about it on my Commons talkpage.) Bishonen | talk20:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
No, you didn't upload it to Commons, someone else did. You uploaded it here and someone else copied it. I'm sure "they" were notified :) And I'll watchlist your Commons page, to see if anything gets stuck there. I'm sure your uploads are all right. Cary Bassdemandez21:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
All of these lectures are nice, but the fact is that zeal over pursuing images has meant the breaking of Wikipedia articles. In most cases, common sense and the file history reveals that the image was uploaded legitimately, but out it goes. Rather than a few seconds of work, a notice goes out to a long-departed user, the image gets deleted, and all of this performed by automation. Human judgment beats a -bot every single time. Ancient engravings and woodcuts would never be mistaken for movie stills by a human. Geogre (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
See also here and here and here for other problems. From what I can tell, a very active bot manager so that a small percentage of mistakes in the context of thousands of correct edits, adds up to several tens of mistakes and needs to tweak the bot. Except sometimes the response is not to tweak the bot but to clean up after it if it only makes a few mistakes. I agree with Geogre though - humans wouldn't make mistake like this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there any action you can take against users?
Hello there!
I'm an on and off editor of Wikipedia. One of the most frequent topics I edit is Australian political issues. Time and time again, I've found my edits as well as the edits of others, reverted and edited by the user Prester John. He is incredibly insulting to other users and frequently engages in edit and revert warring, despite many warnings and previous blocks. This user includes insulting messages on his talk page targeted at Muslims. For whatever reason, regardless of the continual attempts to get this user to cooperate with the open and fun environment of Wikipedia, he persists in his negative approach. While he boasts many contributions, I see little value in most of them as they are merely undoing the edits of those who present facts that contradict his own opinions. No matter how many sources are cited, he deletes the line and states "NPOV', only to replace the comments with his own opinion.
I personally have not talked to this user on the talk page, although many others have. I am not very good at maintaining an even temper so could make matters worse.
The reason I bring it up is because I feel this user has upset too many other users. I cannot understand why a user who so openly attacks others without remorse or even pretend remorse (such as an apology on talk pages) is allowed to continue editing pages he skews and then insults others on.
Attempts have been made for this user to take part in mediation, but he has refused. Is there any way administrators can control the actions of unhelpful editors?
Vision Insider (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are actions that can be taken if users make good-faith editing difficult for others. It's very late in my timezone right now, but I'll take a look later, hopefully tomorrow. Meanwhile, if you know how to make diffs, it would be a big help if you could give me some diffs that illustrate the problem. Please see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. A link to the attempted mediation would be useful, too. Bishonen | talk01:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC).
Here is the Mediation Request refusal on his talkpage, the actual page is now defunct. His user page has openly inflammatory anti-Muslim sentiments at the very top, as well as under the subheading Islam Related Articles. This is one of his racist comments on a talkpage.
Userboxes Prester John uses, I'm actually appalled that this is allowed at all on Wikipedia. In any case, it's proof that he is, by his own admission, racist and happy to edit as such.
Here is one of his personal attacks. This is one of the pages Prester John put forward during his most recent edit war. The page, John Howard has been protected now as a result, which is one of the reasons I am annoyed, it is punishing everybody.
This is an example of a time I feel Prester John has simply decided to take charge of an article with his own opinion. I know that this edit was reverting another edit that was actually an attempt to antagonise Prester John, but it was actually a verifaible claim that was supported and it was relevant (at the time, now it's probably too old as news). Finally, this shows that Prester John has been warned before about being overly biased or unhelpful.
I haven't ever used diffs before, so is there any way I can show you history pages, even though it says not to given they change all the time? When I was editing David Hicks, I got some beauties from Prester John, such as "wet lefty" but they appeared in the edit summaries, which makes it harder to track. Vision Insider (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
To show a diff, that is, an actual edit someone made, first of all you have to load the "History" page of the article in question. You will see two links at the start of every entry, one entitled "cur" for "current" and one entitled "last". Click on the "last" link of any particular edit and that will give you the diff for that particular edit - that is, the change between this version of the page and the previous version. Hope that helps. Gatoclass (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Vision Insider, there is a way you can show me a specific part of a History tab if you want, but it's a bit tricky. The diff and link guide series has three levels of difficulty, like the box on the right shows. I gave you the medium version, Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. But for showing a piece of the History, the third level, Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide, is your man. The technique is described in the section "Timestamp limits". Bishonen | talk17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for diff guide. More importantly, thanks for taking time to have a look, especially since it's hardly the most fun task. I appreciate the action you've taken and am perfectly happy with your decision; you justified it well and I agree with you. Vision Insider (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova's comeuppance?
It seems that CygnetSalad has taken Durova up on her recall offer. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova. My concern here is that CygnetSaIad (talk·contribs) is an admitted sockpuppet. DIFF (add) Probably nothing wrong, but it could come up during the RfC, so perhaps it would be better to address now to remove all reason for doubt. (end addition) I contacted the checkuser you recommend only to discover that I didn't have any actionable evidence, and my original suspicion was far off the mark. I've asked User:FT2 to investigate whether CygnetSaIad is a legitimate sock, or not. I need to relax and recover my wits. If you have any more formatting or programming projects (like the diff guide menus) to keep me busy, please let me know. - JehochmanTalk09:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC) (added at 15:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC))
I've said it and said it: we either allow socks, or we don't. If we do, we're always going to run into this. A person being an alternate account, even a role account, is not necessarily prohibited under current rules. Further, there is no reason why a person who is blocked should not come back after the block with a new account as things stand now. Me? I'd rather there be no socks allowed at all. I've always been of that opinion. With the cards as they are now, though, a person being an alternate account is neither here nor there. Geogre (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC) (not my real name)
Tu quoque is a logical fallacy, Viridae, and moreover Durova isn't the one raising this issue. I don't happen to operate any socks. There are three logical possibilities: (1) This could be a user in good standing using a legitimate alternate account. (2) This could be a banned user who is not entitled to edit. (3) This could be a user in good standings who is operating a forbidden bad hand account for the purpose of creating disruption or controversy. In any case, I am not going to pursue this matter further. I've notified a few friendly admins, and you can follow up or not as you like. Viridae, Bishonen's talk page is frequently a source of wisdom. I recommend watching it, and you should feel free to contact me any time I can help you. - JehochmanTalk14:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's stop an abuse of logic before it begins (i.e. it hasn't begun yet, but it's about to): I've seen many people now referring to tu quoque. Yes, it is a fallacy if used as proof. No, it is not illegitimate. First, it can be used in a rebuttal (as opposed to a proposal) to demonstrate that the speaker's interests are unclear. Second, it can be used to undermine the ethos of the speaker and demonstrate that she has no ethical standing for making a claim. Third, it can be used to show that the person is actually advocating a double standard. Therefore, if I say that Durova uses socks, so her animosity toward alternate accounts (or prejudice toward them) is invalid, I am not saying, "Nyah, nyah." I'm saying, "She wants to block other people who do this, while she does it herself." There is no tu quoque involved. Tu quoque is when a bad act is excused by saying that the accuser does it as well and therefore that it is not a bad act. I'm not accusing you, Jehochman, but I thought, given how many readers come here, that it was worth making this distinction, lest others misuse the term. Geogre (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me, I did not notice my name rolling in with the surf at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, and am struggling to understand what possible reason a check-user could have for running a scan on me. Can I please be provided with the name of the compliant individual, so that she and I may discuss politely how her interprestation of m:CheckUser Policy differs from mine? While I'm fairly unfussed about what the "original suspicion" was, by confirming (or denying) that suspicion, the CU has given out information. CygnetSaIad (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Me? What? Checkuser? Compliant individual? For my part, I'm struggling to understand what you're talking about. Did you accidentally post on the wrong page? Bishonen | talk23:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
I apologise if I was anything other than utterly perspicuous, Bishonen. I've re-read my initial comment above, and it seemed clear enough to me. I don't see the need to participate any further in this thread at this time, but in the spirit of avoiding any misunderstanding:
This thread began with discussion of my status as an alternate account.
Jehochman apparently contacted a check-user and requested information based at least partly on your recomendation,
The statement "my original suspicion was far off the mark" led me to believe that Jehochman had been informed somthing like "No, it's not User:Whomever like you thought."
I felt this was inappropoiate per the policy, and wanted to know who had performed the check-user.
I apologise again if I have intruded into a conversation where I was not welcome, or if I've added to any confusion by arbitrarily using "she" instead of "he." CygnetSaIad (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you should go on the Arbcom Bishonen, you get a terribly good uniform. look I've already had mine made. Giano (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Say, we've never really interacted before but I always find your comments/opinions to be really solidly grounded in the spirit of Wikipedia and generally "right on" as the kids say. I can't think of a person that would be a better addition to ArbCom than you You'll probably say no but I hope you give it some (more) thought...and I don't think I'm alone thinking that. So what do you say? A draft? A write in candidate RxS (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Rx. At the beginning of the elections, I did have some thoughts of running for arbcom, but after recent events I'm glad I didn't. I'd be more likely to leave than try to become more deeply involved, because I'd be ashamed to identify myself with statements like this. Bishonen | talk11:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC).
But it's been archived, so it's obviously settled, and everyone is happy now. (Or they're ashamed and want to hide their sins.) When you shove stuff under the carpet, the room isn't any cleaner: you just have a lumpy carpet. Geogre (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well first off, don't leave! But I understand...Wikipedia is fast becoming full of logic chopping, point scoring and authority gathering (to coin a really awkward phrase). And it's picking up speed...I feel a little hypocritical because I don't feel like spending tons of time myself. But if it's ever going to change, and if newcomers are ever going to get better examples to follow, this is the time. And given the direction things are moving in there might not be another chance (not to be melodramatic). Anyway, it's an ideal that I'd hate to see wasted and I hope you give it a second thought...RxS (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but remember this:
"Here, let me by decree in this very instant make the following binding pledge upon myself:
In the event that the ArbCom makes a ruling against me, overturning any decision I have made in my traditional capacity within Wikipedia, the ArbCom's decision shall be final." Jimbo, April 19, 2007
I simply did that on the assumption that Jehochman was telling me the truth about the identity of IP. He sounded very sure. I realize now that he may have been mistaken. Bishonen | talk17:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC).
I really do encourage you to run...I think this website needs you on the arbcom. I know it would cut into your efforts to continue writing FA's...but I think we need you up there...at least for awhile.--MONGO (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, guys, very flattering, but see this thread. Bishonen may be stupid, but not stupid enough to apply for the worst job on Wikipedia. As soon as I saw Kirill's cutting-through-the-crap question, "Are you willing and able to serve on the Committee—via whatever account—should you be appointed following the election?" the answer flashed in neon letters across a darkling sky: "Do I look like a crazy person?" Bishonen | talk16:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
No...YOU do not look like a crazy person...but you do occasionally converse with MONGO, who might by definition be a crazy person. The verdict is still out though....however, many do assume the worst.--MONGO (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the Bishzilla as arbcom candidate threat. The funniest thing I've read in a long while! I'd encourage you to run as well. You would certainly have my support. Talking of arbcom candidacies, I've been a bit taken aback to find this thread developing on my talk page... Carcharoth (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It is rather amazing that it was that list, because, as I mention elsewhere, Bishonen (and Geogre and myself) was invited to it, but I suppose, like myself, never ended up setting it up. That's what makes Durova's lack of trust in Bishonen so odd. That, as well as seeing how according to Bishonen, Durova trusted her with various other investigations but when it came to this one, involving a user whom Durova knew was active on Bishonen's talk page(!), she opted to mistrust her. Strange, wouldn't you agree? El_C15:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I sort of hopethis unanswered question to Durova from Giano doesn't explain it it, El C. In the sense that perhaps I'd become defined as being on the same "team" as User:!!. That would be a frighteningly sudden thing to happen... in a way, I can't believe it. I mean, I'm not even new like user:!!. Yet what else does the link mean--the link to where Giano, user:!!, and I are sillily chatting, as friends will, on my page?[72] Was it really an accident of self-selection, that neither Durova nor anybody else asked me "why is that guy moving the archives? And what's with the familiar tone to him, Bishonen?" Mackensen, what do you think, am I getting paranoid, too ? Bishonen | talk15:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
Bishonen, I think it is more likely that Durova simply did not think to ask this now rather obvious question because had lost perspective on her investigation. I hope and think the word "team" referred to the team of WR trolls that Durova believed was working to infiltrate Wikipedia. Thatcher13116:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
She quite distinctly refers to me as part of the team! Am i the only person still to have properly read the evidence, and what is more i would like some answers here [73]. Giano (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Having read the sekret email at <Website redacted>, I believe "team player" refers to the behavior of the Wikipedia Review trolls she was hunting. They are "team players" in the sense that they do nice things for people, such as helping to move archives, in order to build credibility. She says "They are team players" in the context of a list of instructions in how to spot the trolls. Is there somewhere else that she makes a different reference involving Giano or Bishonen? Thatcher13117:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes! without going someplace else to have a look, there is one diff where she says "here he is helping the tream" click the diff and you have me and another of our friends! Somewhere near the bottom. This is totally ridiculous that we are not allowed to look at what is clearly important evidence! Giano (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The only diff under the heading "Here's the sock helping the team" that involves you is this one. I confess I don't know what is meant by "helping the team" in this case. Thatcher13120:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
also if you look moving my archives is assisting the team or something like that. There is so much more to this that people are trying to sweep away. They can name me as a party in the case threaten me with God knows what, but I will not have this under the carpet! She chose the wrong sock this time Giano (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No, as I said above I think the point of him moving your archives is that he was trying to be a team player and build credibility with important users on the site...hmm, possibly to build credibility with important users so that once he unleashed his trolling agenda they would reflexively jump to his defense, thereby muddying the waters and contributing to his ultimate goal of disruption? Does that mean Durova thinks you were being used as a pawn by !!? Thatcher13120:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Giano? You're disappointed? What about me? I'm not even mentioned. Do you have any idea how much it hurts my feelings to be neither trusted nor mistrusted, to be neither part of the team nor on the bench? I mean, really! Am I not rhetorically potent? If you prick me, do I not bleed? Have I no "incivility?" Geogre (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
OMG, I just got it. "The sock-helping the team" diff, pointing in fact here implies that I am third in the team with the other two being Giano and !!. I did nothing to deserve that honor. While I take some modest pride in content I wrote, it is nothing compared with these two jewel contributors. Thanks, Thatcher, for posting it here, at the page I actually read. I never go to WR or malicious oft-sited off-site blogs. While it is sad that our "wikielite" pushes editors to find information they oversight at WR, I, perhaps mistakenly, don't do it.
As for Bish' running for ArbCom, I support her decision not to. It is not nice to wish her to go into this purgatory. --Irpen (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
'lo Bishonen, we've not met. I saw this quote in a diff you link above, and just had to bring it forward. I can't believe I'm still figuring out what this was ever (not) about, and it just keeps getting worse. Hope I'm not missing something - is THIS really what was referred to:
Per your request, I have moved the archives around a bit. There are a few redirects for a friendly admin to sort out, if one it watching. -- !! ?? 10:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. User:!! was asking me to finish the job he had started--"friendly admin" is a hint to me--so I did, but I got it wrong. (Too stupid.) Therefore, he eventually finished it himself. Bishonen | talk11:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
I feel like something Kafka-esque is brewing over at Swedish language now that panda has gotten involved in trying to spruce the article up. Some pointers are relevant, but the problem is that the user seems to be utterly oblivious to basic linguistics, yet very keen on pointing out problems concerning, for example, grammar that really aren't there. There's also outright strangeness going on concerning how statistics should be handled. I'm trying to point out the futility of some of the arguments, but I'm mostly just getting guideline citations and bull-headedness in return.
Do you think you could give a hand in easing communication here or maybe point someone from your vast mediation minions to the dispute?
Oh, no, not the guideline citations again...! Sorry, Peter, my vast minions are kind of busy over here. I'm a little distracted today. Unless you think it would ease communication to tell a few people to shut the hell up? Because that seems to be mainly what I do lately. It can be just what's needed, but, well, usually not. Bishonen | talk12:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
No, that's okay. You all seem to be in one hell of a mess. I'll take it to mediation if no progress is made. Thanks anyhew.
Lord, how I loathe all these wiki-technocrats. Now they're telling me that no matter the circumstances, one must linking every single full date anywhere. Even the dates citing when a web reference was checked by some Wikipedia nerd like myself!
Hi Bishonen. You've often improved my edits to this, so please have a look. I know you spelt out my previous abbreviation of FA, but I'm unsure why, so I've re-abbreviated it. Seems easier to read and more concise, and is widely used elsewhere. I think FAC is a problem, since the C can stand for either candidate (as in the name of the template) or criteria. So I've spelt out the C-word, except where it stands for the template. Please review that usage. Here it is.Tony(talk)01:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC) PS Hoary will be delighted with my introduction of the singular they; I think it's particularly appropriate here.
12:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC). (See 'zilla world-class cool animated sig!)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Done Miranda 02:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Your speechlessness has been rejected for lacking a template format. If you'd like to do something-or-other, use the sandbox! El_C 23:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
colourful Giano-bot
.jpg)
in Bish/ʑi/lla. The non-PR approved picture of her face used at User:Bishonen/Bishzilla RFA temporarily paralyzed my ability to make the association to the happy face Shi (kana). (And, while I'm at it, I would like to propose to Amandajm that she considers getting ready to apply for the post as personal secretary and Prada flanel gown carrier the minute Bishzilla hits the top rank, because of her "ear to the ground" approach to trollish art activity and the speed demonstrated in traveling from Australia to Rome and back in time to post here before this thread is archived.) Pia 21:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=spacer}
Silly girl! Bishonen | talk 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Daredevil46.jpg&oldid=142636334%7Chere){kind=link}
![[52]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_September_28#Image:GladstoneandRosebery.gif){kind=link}
![[56]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Isps_gate.jpg&diff=161941654&oldid=160598609){kind=link}
