User talk:Bishonen/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Good evening Bishonen!

Glad to see you're home. I have replied on my user page, As this page is far too long as it is!

You're right, it was. Good grief, you've got a ventriloquist act with the goat now? Bishonen | talk 01:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Awwww! What a cute baby goat! Is it Cecilia's? Bishonen | talk 01:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Spam..? Sure, hit me! Bishonen | talk 01:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but sure! I feel bad ruining your perfectly clean, recently archived page. The temptation is great, though! El_C 02:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me after that self-blocking weirdness :) Secretlondon 18:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Very nice to meet you, Secret! Bishonen | talk 19:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Bisgh, I am kind of mentally different and like to do things that people dont approve of necessarliy but how would you like it if you were locked in your parents big house all alone most of the time either with just a computer and a TV?? I DO have friends but they have to come over and see me most of the time and I can't go see THEM without supervision. If have some money from my parents but can't really live alone yet and I don't know when. So a lot of my time is just sitting here :( Now Lucky wants to banish me for doing drugs. Well what would you do if it was after midnight and you hadn't gone out in 2 days either? I"m sorry, do what you have to do but please try to undrestand me.Wiki brah 02:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Profuse gratitude

Thank you so very much for your flower! I'm going to send you some more goats, these are wild ones I photographed in Egypt, just as soon as I have the time to scan them. Hope the holiday was a success, so brave of you to try scuba diving, and snorkelling, in the fjords so unfashionably far north. Giano | talk 22:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And what is wrong with the inqquisition? Giano | talk 05:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Länsteater

I have been pointed in your direction for either a translation, or an explanation of the word "länsteater" and similar. My question arouse because of Gävleborgs Folkteater mentioned in the article Anders Norudde. Do you know if there is a generally accepted translation of this proper name? If not, do you have a suggestion on a not too lenghty explanation of what a "länsteater" is? / Habj 14:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to cause you such trouble! Since I was pointed in your direction, I assumed you had something to do with Swedish-related stuff... I've corrected the dating info on the play/the forming of the group. "County theatre" sounds great, tax-sponsored institution is indeed what it is - but not very "folkrörelse", just paid by the tax. As we don't know of an official English namn, I think that addition explains enough. "People's theatre" to me sounds a bit too much like China. / Habj 07:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Bishonen knows a lot about theatre, and about Swedish-English translation, which is why I suggested that you ask her. Anyway, I think this is the type of translation issues that is likely to come up more often with better coverage of Swedish institutions and organisations. Sometimes a translation is obvious and straightforward and may even end up as an English term actually used for a similar type of institution. In other cases a translation sounds strange and may even be misleading. (Politically loaded terms are particularly problematic - how do you translate "Frisinnade folkpartiet" or "Lantmannapartiet"?) As for theatres, I just thought of an article I wrote a while ago on the architect Axel Anderberg, who built a number of theatres:

"His first significant commission was the new Opera House in Stockholm (1889-1898), which replaced the gustavian opera building. After having won the contest for the building he spent additional time abroad for the particular purpose of studying theatre architecture. He later designed the city theatres in Karlstad (1893), Linköping (1902-1903) and Kristianstad (1906) and the Oscarsteatern in Stockholm (1906)."

I am not asking you to see this as a model, just as an example of my spontaneous reaction when confronted with a list of Swedish theatres. "Stadsteatern i X" was easy enough to translate and probably not misleading, but I felt that Oscarsteatern was a bit too much of a proper noun to translate (and I couldn't find an official translation). I left it in Swedish but in italics, which warns a reader that "here comes one of those long compound Swedish words, beware of stumbling!". Having thought about it a bit more, I think I would probably treat Gävleborgs folkteater much as Oscarsteatern; even though it is on the surface easy to translate, the translation looks a bit odd and possibly misleading. Generally speaking I would be more inclined to use a Swedish name as an article title (like Riksdag, for instance), where it can be explained and alternative English translations offered at the beginning of the article, but to use a reasonably good English translation (like Swedish parliament) in text, pipelinked or redirected, to avoid the "stumbling" effect of stacking to many foreign terms into an English text. --Uppland 08:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm not sure how to do... continue on Bishonen's talk page? Maybe we can move it from here later, if we think we find something worth saving on an article talk page? Or to mine, if we want to avoid disturbing Bishonen.

I completely agree on the riksdag/parliament example. The problem is the cases where no suitable English translation exist. I find your exemple with the theatre buildings smooth, your way of writing it avoids pretending that the English description are English proper nouns.

When reading texts about foreign things, a certain amount of foreign proper names can be expected. My idea of how to avoid the stumbling effect is to wrap it up in an explanation, if possible put before the foreign proper name. "The stage play Den stora vreden", for instance. If mentioned several times in the text, it can be referred to as "the play" - or Vreden, short and nice and the word that people do use when they talk about it. Actually, I would do something similar in your theatre building example if I only knew a good description in english of "privatteater" (not funded by tax money, owned by a person or a company, usuall if not only found in big cities, usually playing popular stuff like musicals and comedies that attract a larger crowd). I know it is not "private theatre", but for the sake of the example... "He later designed the city theatres in Karlstad (1893), Linköping (1902-1903) and Kristianstad (1906) and the private theatre Oscarsteatern in Stockholm (1906)." This gives rougly the same information that Swedish readers can extract from the nature of the very names of the various theatres, and is more smooth than just stating the name. / Habj 11:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Disturbing Bishonen? Heh heh, you guys are very welcome here. I may even chip in. :-) Bishonen | talk 11:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

One or the other

Don't look for me on IRC or the various policy/talk pages. I'm about done with this place. It occurs to me more and more every day that not only will quality get swamped by bulk, but that, increasingly, there isn't even the smallest island for quality, so merely retreating to writing solid article and letting the rabid and distempered gradually agree that Wikipedia should be Everything2 isn't an option. I may go on full break. I haven't decided, yet, but I care less and less about how successful people can be at eliminating any deletion, any featured status, any standards at all. Quality, it seems, is only desired in the abstract, but having one great orgy of self-expression is demanded in the here and now. Geogre 16:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, gosh: first Fil; now you, Geogre. Please don't go permanently - where would we be without stellar articles like Augustan literature? Don't let the buggers get you down, for goodness sake. It sounds like taking some time away from the madhouse to recharge of batteries is in order. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I was very distressed to see Fil go (although he told me in an email that he would probably be back — I sure hope so, its been awhile now). I would also be very distressed to see Geogre leave. I think we are suffering from growing pains and have scaling issues but I believe they can all be managed. I think it is especially hard on the people who have been with the project for the longest time. But whatever we can do to keep great editors like Fil and Geogre, we should. Let me know if I can help in any small (or not so small) way. Paul August ☎ 18:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)

Func( t, c, e,  ) 19:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

All right already! Bubble gum pink, isn't it? Bishonen | talk 19:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Bishonen | talk 01:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Func( t, c, e,  ) 01:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

JRM · Talk 11:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

--Bishonen | talk 11:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It's

quite

simple,

really

this

particular

box

was

stolen

from

the

old-style

box

template

and

I

tried

to

find

the

yuckiest

shade

of

purple

possible.

If

you

want

the

ultimate

in

box

customizability,

though

your

only

recourse

is

to

learn

CSS.

JRM

12:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, boy, that's a lot of code. Silly me, here was I thinking you'd simply stolen Sam Spade's sig. Bishonen | talk 13:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

All those pastel boxes are nice, but there's just... something missing. Some roundness to balance the angularity of the boxes. Oh, I know: File:Madhappyfaceblob.gif

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

/me sighs

I suppose all you wonderful people realize I archived TWO DAYS AGO??? Oh, hey, though, now I know what I want: round text boxes! There's a challenge! Bishonen | talk 18:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

hmm,

that's really not

much of a challenge,

though you can't just go

ahead and write any old

thing then. Oh wait,

you meant the

box...

JRM · Talk 18:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...are we getting closer? :) Func( t, c, e,  ) 18:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

OK... thank you both (/me sighs slightly again). To recapitulate, we have the ace of diamonds and a sort of trompe l'oeil, uh, roundedness. I expect I'll ... settle. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I won't stop until I get it right.... Func( t, c, e,  ) 19:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Bishonen | talk 19:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. Where's the parameter that lets me specify the color? JRM · Talk 20:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[Hastily] Yes, yes, that's excellent, finally something tasteful, you can stop now! Bishonen | talk 21:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure this particular talk page shouldn't be VfD'ed, for the sake of the project. JRM · Talk 21:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, and the page's primary author, someone called Bishonen, should be blocked. Func( t, c, e,  ) 21:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That would be a blessed releif, if it wasn't for the new way blocks work: I would still be able to edit this page. Only this page. It would be like being in some existentialist play. :-( The unfortunate Bishonen | talk 21:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You win the award...

or is it a ... El_C 09:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

...for weirdest talk page ever. Andre (talk) 07:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I daresay you were an accessory to it. Andre (talk) 08:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently. It's 4 am and I have nothing else to do but edit Wikipedia, but it isn't curing my insomnia. Andre (talk) 08:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Pas de problème. Andre (talk) 08:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

$A=\bigcup _{i=1}^{m}\psi _{i}(A)\bigcup _{i=1}^{m}\psi _{i}(V)\subseteq V\lambda _{m}(E)=2^{-m}{\frac {\pi ^{m/2}}{\Gamma ({\frac {m}{2}}+1)}}H^{m}(E)H_{\delta }^{s}(E)=\inf {\Bigg \{}\sum _{i=1}^{\infty }\operatorname {diam} (A_{i})^{s}{\Bigg \}}$ El_C 09:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, El! You've reinvented the wheel! Bishonen | talk 16:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I (re?)invented something! El_C 01:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking at this page, I can't help but think...

slightly timid. El_C 07:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't bother archiving any of this. In fact, if it were me, I'd just redirect my talk page to the Sandbox and lock it. JRM · Talk 11:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello, JRM, would you happen to have a chamois cloth I could use to polish my new award? You'd hardly have any use for it, would you? Bishonen | talk 11:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You get an award essentially for encouraging me to spend time on your talk page and calling me an idiot, and then you've got the nerve to take a swipe at me?

Lady, there isn't an ArbCom in history who wouldn't ban you for trolling. JRM · Talk 11:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Aww...! Germie...! I didn't realize the issue was so sensitive for you. Look at your userpage, you'll see something nice and shiny of your very own! Bishonen | talk 16:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

One day I'll go back to anonymous editing. But not today. JRM · Talk 17:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd say something snippy, but a. I'm unsure what that means; b. I don't want to get on JRM's bad side! /hides in the dark El_C 01:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, he's not such an ogre! Just call him Germ and he thaws right out! Bishonen | talk 07:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but I remain slightly timid nonetheless. El_C 07:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Motorvag

E70 is explaining that he's tired of me at Talk:Motorväg. I don't think he'll ever actually read the VfD, my argumentation or even applicable policy, so could you give a hand?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA and your kind words there. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

It may seem a bit silly to give an admin one for doing their duty, but good job on being patient with me on the stupid articles. >.> -- A Link to the Past 20:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Seeking an opinion

File:Tv sesame street Beautiful Day.jpg

Hi Bish - paths haven't crossed for a while, trust all has been well with you. I'm just wondering if you might care to have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zambezi/archive1 and associated comments on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates - I incorporated a lot of 1911 Britannica text into the article, which has raised questions about whether it can be considered an example of Wikipedia's best work. I seem to recall you've done quite a bit with lavish 1911 prose so would be interested to hear your views. Also, I just put Surtsey up on FAC.

As it seems obligatory to leave splash of colour and/or a silly picture with comments on this page, here you go. Worldtraveller 14:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Obligatory? Argghh. Compare this post! Hmmm. Well, I'm kind of prejudiced against the 1911, to tell you the truth. All I tend to do with text from it is replace it, actually. I mean, even though the editors were very enlightened for their time, you can imagine their basic POV for Restoration drama, namely "Disgusting!" Not much I can use that for, so I make a fresh start. (If you mean I've written some lavish 1911-type prose, OTOH, you may have a rather worrying point there. ;-P.) The Zambesi would be a whole different case, naturally. I certainly will take a look and try to come up with a thought. Surtsey? Surtsey!! I'll run, not walk, to that one! You know how to draw a girl in! Bishonen | talk 14:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that 1911 POV does rear its head on a lot of subjects! With Zambezi, there's luckily not too much of a colonial attitude you can bring in to describing the course of a river, so most of my alterations were just trimming the luxuriant prose into something more toned down. Some time soon I'm going to tackle Andes, which is just a horrible 1911 mess at the moment, and severely handicapped by the fact they didn't believe in continental drift back then. ETPH, it must be said, perhaps verges on 1911EB proportions of hyperbole and descriptiveness, otherwise I think your writing is acceptably modern :) Anyway, look forward to your thoughts on Zambezi and Surtsey! Worldtraveller 17:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh noes, I was too late to vote on Zambezi. Well, I've posted a missed-the-party thought on the FAC talk. Bishonen | talk 12:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

admin request

Hi pretty boy.

Could I bother your admin powers with removing the images created by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dankell  ? Dankell has been moving images from wikimedia commons to wikipedia :-). Doing it now will save someone the trouble of doing it later.

--Fred-Chess 08:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Fred, thanks for letting me know. I've dropped a message on Dankell's Swedish page, since he seems to be a lot more active there. I think it would be polite to give him a day or so to respond before I delete them, if he wants, even though his uploading of the images was clearly a mistake. I'll zap 'em tonight or tomorrow morning. Cheers, Bishonen | talk 09:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

suggestion

If you're going to throw your weight around, may I suggest you do a little research first? 212.101.64.4 15:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I did, thanks. The User contributions feature makes it easy. Bishonen | talk 15:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

From your comment, it doesn't look like it. It looks like a standard knee-jerk reaction to something someone doesn't like. However, if that's how things work around here, perhaps there should be a page on how to avoid such problems. btw, what happened to "first warning" (and maybe even second)? 212.101.64.4 15:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

We skip those in egregious cases. And we do have special pages explaining the concepts of civility and personal attack, if you'd like to learn more. Most people know what's insulting without needing to be told, though, and I think you do too: I was interested to note that after I removed your personal attack at Din, you reposted a clean version, without any "crap", "wankers", "idiots", "saddos", "sadgits" or other of your favourite expressions in it. Please keep it up with the reformed style and you'll be most welcome to contribute, and nobody will want to block you. Bishonen | talk 16:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

wow, I am utterly humbled by your amazing condescension 212.101.64.4 16:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

That's more like it! :-) Bishonen | talk 16:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You are -Ril- and I claim my five pounds [1]. --cesarb 17:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Norwegian anon acting up

The anonymous Norwegian user is at it again at talk:Norwegian language. He tried reverting back to the SIL classification and now he's claiming that the letter from a representative from Norsk Språkråd is not neutral because she's writing in Nynorsk. His POV here seems to be that he's a proponent of a) Eastern Norwegian and b) Riksmål and is just generally not listening to argumentation. Can I really RfAr the guy or is this something you or other admins can deal with?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, groan, that's bad. In the first place, it's impossible to follow, both because the anon doesn't sign, and becauses everybody posts all over the place, there is no chronlogy. And in the second place, that's a lot of ad hominem and poisoning of the well going on there. I have posted (I just realized I forgot to ask everybody to for \¥¶¢‰{∏Œ˜Ü{\ sakes post at the FOOT of the page), I hope it has some effect, but if not, I think you should go ahead with the RFAR. It's an important article, after all, we can't have everybody abandoning it because editing it has become too unpleasant. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm very unnerved about contributors saying they want to leave, that's for sure, and I'm guessing others are not going to like this either. Naturally, he once again reverted to the SIL classification, even though he doesn't even understand the difference between East/West and Insular/Mainland. I'm going to start preparing the RfAr. Scaring off others is where I draw the line.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It usually takes more than one individual to make a harsh discussion. I won't excuse anyone's personal attacks, but it appears to me that you have a special ability to end up in controversy. If you hold your finger off the trigger for just a second, I will try and appeal to the anon to reach an agreeable solution. I may still spend less time on the article than I'd like, but hopefully something may come out of it.
Bishonen, sorry for trampling into you page, it just seemed like the best place at the moment. --Eddi (Talk) 10:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Uppsala University

Bish, could you take a look at Uppsala University, please. There are still another couple of centuries of history to write before I can take it to peer review, but it is already at 35kb and I really need someone else to take a look at the article for suggestions as to structure, and what possibly to move over to sub-articles. I haven't added any references yet, but most of the article is based on Sten Lindroth's little history of the university from 1977. Uppland 10:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, i was thinking it could become a FA eventually. Have a nice weekend in the Sharegawrd! The review can wait until you come back, unless the Uppsala University article is suddenly speedily deleted as being about a non-notable school in the remote, non-English speaking arctic, of course. Uppland 14:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation of the article! With the present disposition, the history section will get quite a bit longer, as it needs the addition of the period from 1800 until now, and the location bit needs expansion too, as do other things... A History of Uppsala University article could be spun off and be even longer. I still think it is important to keep focus on the history in the main page. Too many of the university articles around here seem to be written for presumptive students rather than anyone else.

Other spin-off articles may be possible (music, nations, history of student life in general). The organisation looks very dull, but I wonder if it can really be an article all of its own; perhaps one could de-list it and make it more like narrative text, perhaps with a list in a table on the side. The locations/buildings section is really just a draft; it could probably be spun off into an article of its own, but it needs more content first, and I don't really have images for many of the places (I have no camera at the moment). The Royal Academic Orchestra and Allmänna Sången need articles, as does the Uppsala Botanical Garden. The university hospital could probably be spun off into an article all of its own. There are some alternative and unused images on commons (see commons:Category:Uppsala). Uppland 17:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Fil's leaving

Hi Bishonen. I presume you are aware that Filiocht has decided to leave the project (see: User talk:Filiocht#Why I won't be back any time soon. It seems to me that his leaving should not go unremarked upon. I would like to honor him in some way for all his excellent contributions to the project. I would be willing to try to write something on my own, but I believe that you knew him better and longer than I did, And you are certainly a better writer. And I also thought you might want to have the honor of writing something? Perhaps there are others who should be involved? I would be happy to try to help organize and fashion some kind of tribute. Paul August ☎ 13:17, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, a Wikipedia:Signpost article would not go amiss (Ta bu shi da yu had one when he went and when he came back, IIRC). But there are lots of Missing Wikipedians. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking more of a paean or a panegyric, preferably in verse ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:37, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

A paean sounds just right! :-) I think Geogre would be the man to write it (perhaps in sonnet form). Since Geogre isn't currently editing so much, I've dropped him an e-mail about Fil's farewell visit, to make sure he doesn't miss it. Bishonen | talk 16:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yes poor old Fil, he is no more, of his own choice, his obituary is written. A Loan has placed him on Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. He is after all still in the land of the living - C'est la vie! (as we don't say in Italy). We can do no more - So upwards and onwards. Have you seen today's front page Blaise Pascal. I had always thought she was that model who was a great friend of Caroline de Monaco, it seems I could be wrong, before I edit, and correct the main page heavily of whom is it I am thinking, she's lovely, I fantasise all the time, come on who is she, my day was wrecked when I tuned in full of anticipation to the Blaise featured here. Giano | talk 20:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Aw, Cecilia, come to momma! Bishonen | talk 23:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well for what it is worth I thought it might be nice to collect some stuff together that Fil accomplished while he was here. These are things I knew about or found out by poking around a bit, I would guess there are more:

Featured articles

• Samuel Beckett
• James Joyce
• William Butler Yeats
• Abbey Theatre
• John Millington Synge
• Lady Gregory
• George A. Moore
• H.D.
• Irish theatre
• The Cantos
• Modernist poetry in English

Featured list:

• List of cultural references in The Cantos

Other contributions:

• Founding member: Wikipedia:Literature collaboration of the fortnight
• Created: Wikipedia:Featured lists, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
• Actively contributed to: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Perhaps we could call the paean Filiochts Wake? Paul August ☎ 23:10, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• I think its a nice, well meaning idea to celebrate Fil's achievements, but I have one big problem with such a plan, well two or three actually. Firstly Fil was/is very modest and would probably hate such a show. Secondly, his work stands for itself as his talent. Finally and most importantly, if one buries some-one with a final goodbye, one makes it very hard for that person to exhume themselves should they wish, and I sincerely hope he will one day have such a wish. Lets remember the reality, Fil is alive and kicking in the Emerald Isle, he has merely (hopefully, just for the time being) ceased to operate here. Giano | talk 11:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Bad and good handling of literature, and the antidote to Britanica

I just saw The Plain Dealer for the fist time (the article, I mean; I've never seen the play acted, but I've read it more than once). It is exactly that kind of nonsense with which we should not up put. You and I like to annihilate it when we see it in our field, and this particular article is certainly in your way, but it occurs to me that one of the things that Filiocht did before he took his name was offer serious, sober, and balanced articles on 19th century British and Irish authors. These are the writers second most likely to be distorted by those abortions planted all over Wikipedia: the public domain encyclopedia. I understand that folks mean well when they plant those corpses in our garden, but it only makes me more wish for a Wiki-pager system. "Thinking of dropping teh literature bomb? Call 555-18TH first!" Filiocht gave us comprehensive, and precise articles. You and I have done what we could as we have had time and inclination, but few will know and fewer care the amount of good this does when we are working on a "I got there first!" project. Geogre 20:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I should be off the list, as my prose is "leaden." (sigh) Here I thought I could feel my own prose and was not blinded by aesthetic distance. As Billy Pilgrim says, so it goes. Geogre 11:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Neither of us should be listed, really: you write leaden prose and I contribute to the poisonous atmosphere. In any case, I have a suggestion: I think it would be a good idea if people copied their Filiocht tributes to Fil's own page, since that, rather than this, is where others would expect to find them. Also they'll probably stay visible longer there, as my page gets archived quite frequently. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I, of course, was not writing a tribute but filing a complaint and trying not to mention the offenders. I did this only because I hadn't before agreed with you enough about how awful the 1911 incursions are, and I saw on The Plain Dealer that your edit summary had mentioned it. A graceless segue, perhaps, but not an actual tribute. Geogre 18:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Block

You know, I've used the mop (rollback button) and bucket (deletion/undeletion) hundreds of times, but I hardly ever reach for the shield of steel (page protection) or sawn off shotgun (blocking). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

your question

just wanted to let you know that I responded to your question on my RFA page. I also jumped through a hoop while writing it for good measure :). Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 15:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks—lovely jump, but I've responded with a bit of a question mark. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I replied on the page to your question, I admit that I haven't had many notable content disputes since much of the content work I do is an add here, a copyedit there, a subtraction here and there as needed but I'm in the process of trying to get more involved with content without slacking on my current participation on other areas of the wiki. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Tudorbethan

Thank you for restoring Tudorbethan, unfortunately User: Neutrality has now moved it yet again, this time to Tudorbethan architecture again with no discussion. Is this common Wikipedia practice? I note Neutrality is an arbitrator! Giano | talk 10:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• No don't bother, I realy can't be doing with all this continual backwards and forwards, he has not bothered to respond to the message I left on his talk page, and is obviously an authority on architecture, so let him have his own way - life is too short. Obviously not a lot doing for him on arbitration. I am pondering the whole subject of architectural definitions at the moment anyway - I just write it let those who understand it name it. Giano | talk 12:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Hmph! Giano | talk 12:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Would you mind giving Baldassarre Lanci a quick copy edit. I expect you will want to link it to many of your pages - it's quite all right I don't mind in the least!!! Giano | talk 15:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• I haven't edited for ages, I added an image about an hour or so ago, save your edit and I will sort it out, its your English I want! Giano | talk 16:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• That's great, thanks. I've made one weeny alteration, but how can I see your queeries if they are inviseable (you're becoming far too computerised for your own good)You must paste it in or you won't be on the history record when this reaches the dizy heights for which it is destined! Giano | talk 17:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• The questions are "commented out", meaning that they're visible in edit mode only. Open the edit field of this post that you're reading, and you'll see some "commented out" comments! Bishonen | talk 18:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes Yes, I see all of that, but I've already done that, what are the questions you are asking! Oh f**** this secrecy I am losing the plot. Thanks for the copyedit - are you by any chance a freemason (@*!"ZZB^£ wink wink, nudge nudge) funnily enough I am not, but I beleive they go in for something similar. Giano | talk 21:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I had begun to think I was going mad. The prose did seem to have that familiar golden sunkissed flow, which I so admire. I though I had finaly taught you some writing skills! Giano | talk 07:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

AOL Autoblock/August 24th

Hi! I'm back again. I would appreciate the favor of another release, if you happen to be onsite. Thanks. WBardwin 16:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Olivier. The reason given is this: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "WikiNazi". The reason given for WikiNazi's block is: ""i am WikiNazi. i want you all to join me in vandalizing wikipedia"". Your IP address is 205.188.117.69.

JRM and Bishonen -- Thank you, valiant warriors. Good luck against the threat of the Hun! WBardwin 17:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Bless you. :-) At this rate, AOL will end up giving me quite a collection of wall decorations. WBardwin 17:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

August 25th -- different IP address this time. Are you available for another release? Thanks. WBardwin 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Ryan Delaney. The reason given is this: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Mickey663". The reason given for Mickey663's block is: "Sock puppet". Your IP address is 64.12.116.7.

Thank you for trying. It's nice to have someone to blame, isn't it. So --- I blame... Mozilla for all these blocks. (Is Mozilla part of Wiki's software, by chance? That would be appropriate!) Appreciate your help. WBardwin 00:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Three Guineas

Bish, I think that's a marvelous idea making that thing a redirect. I've never seen these vandal bots override an existing article. It's always a pleasure seeing your words smiling back at me on my talk page. You are, of course, welcome anytime. Ciao for now.  :) - Lucky 6.9 22:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth Boutell

Hi Bish. I have added my source to the references section. I am not sure on the style we use for journal articles so it might look a little goofy. Rje 00:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nicktunney/tunney./whatever

The autoblocker should be left to do its work unless we can show it's actually hurting people, otherwise folks would log out and go straight on with editing (effectively requiring you to watch out and do every block twice). Unless we know this yokel has an AOL account, there's no need to worry. JRM · Talk 19:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Helpful Offer on Blocking

Thank you for your continued help and willingness to watch out for me. Frankly, I don't recall seeing a time on the "Block" page, but next time I'll copy the whole thing and paste it here. I really am getting used to this obstruction. But, as my time here will be in more discreet blocks in the relatively near future, the time wasted in getting a block cleared will be more important. Appreciate you. WBardwin 00:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

block

Of course I don't mind. Feel free. Enjoy yourself. Sing a little song, even.  :-) Joyous (talk) 00:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

after a 24 hours ban, vandalizing again

In case you didn't notice, User:213.237.21.6 vandalize again Talk:Bogdanov Affair with the same personal attacks and garbage. --YBM 13:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I did notice, I've been trying to make sense of the page. I've written a warning on User talk:213.237.21.6, and will be keeping an eye on Talk:Bogdanov Affair. It's difficult for an outsider to understand what people are referring to, and also hard to tell whether some of the anons are actually the same user, so I feel a little overwhelmed. I've a good mind to lock the talk page along with the article..! But I'll definitely re-block Sophie if there's more yelling and name-calling. Bishonen | talk 14:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, there were not much anons being actually the same user (Well, Igor/Grichka Bogdanov first edited under IP, then on the User:Bogdanov name). The discussion is in fact running quite well between EE, CatherineV and me. The only real problems is that "Sophie Petterka" (under IP) floods the page with garbage (*not* a word on the issue) every day, Laurence67 is somethimes giving an opinion between two personal attacks against me, but could in the future participate constructively (I guess). --YBM 15:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, you should contact a french wikimedia administrator Céréal Killer, who's is believing absurd Sophie's claim to have been banned from en.wikipedia some days ago by a 'hacked admin accout' (supposed to be "Céréal@Killer"), this guy (not very computer fluent I guess), even posted this on the wikipedia french mailing list without checking first with the admins... --YBM 15:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I just posted to you on your page without checking here first, sorry. A "hacked admin account"..? What rubbish. Are you the one supposed to have hacked this admin account? How about you send Cereal Killer some links to relevant posts here, for instance mine and Cesarb's on WP:AN, and mine to Sophie on her page? That should teach him not to believe everything he's told. Bishonen | talk 16:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll follow the advice you've sent to me, with the likely support of the sane contributor of the discussion page. Meanwhile, "Sophie" is vandalizing again the page. As predicted she is now accussing me to have "INFILTERED WIKI WEBSITE AND DELEETED MY BLOG AND BANISHED ME FROM IT ILLEGALLY BY STEALING THE IDENTITY OF AN ADMINISTRATOR" (sigh) --81.64.153.216 02:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Blog? Oh my! If there's a blog on Wikipedia, I want to know about that. I like to delete blogs. (Wasn't there a book about all these prehistoric hanging victims they found in Wales called The Blog People?) Geogre 03:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, Geogre, sorry to disappoint you, there's no blog. (Like you haven't seen newbies calling their talk page a "blog" or "site" before, riiight.) YBM, I've posted on Talk:Bogdanov Affair, to try to defuse matters. If it doesn't help, the option of blocking remains. I understand that the situation is frustrating for you, but I hope you'll still work with me in trying to not wind up Sophie. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Of course. I just couldn't resist being a wag. I do sort of think though that these unconscious mistakes by new users betray something deeper. They're lapsus scriptiae. The troublesome users seem to share the belief that a communication of theirs on a hosted website like this one is just exactly like an e-mail. Therefore, when what they say is deleted, it's "censorship." When someone follows them around to undo the damage they make, it's "stalking." There is a really, really fundamental misunderstanding there: this is not the public space, and no one owns the words. I'm not sure how we could make the welcomes explain it any better, but I do see most of the totally unhinged folks sharing that one misapprehension. Geogre 11:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• • And then the U.S. users start in on how their constitutional right to free speech is being violated. Actually, the next time I see an anon lay claim to an infringement of the First Amendment, I think I will suggest that they petition for Jimbo's impeachment. :) Func( t, c, @, ) 15:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice "Sophie Petterka" (aka User:213.237.21.6) is now back as XAL and is providing great fun (and some abuses against you and I) on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal --YBM 13:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. No, I didn't know, I don't have any way of finding a name account from an IP (this is a deliberate wiki feature, for privacy reasons), and nobody else told me about it, so I appreciate your information. I've put a note with a couple of links on the Mediation Cabal page now, to give other people a chance of understanding what it's all about. Bishonen | talk 15:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You Won!!!

Thank you for the release --- appreciate you watching out for me. WBardwin 19:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

My award

Bishonen, thank you so much for my Zola, and for fixing that damn user page of mine, which is a real mess. :) I'm planning to refactor it into some useful subpages, based on your extraordinary example. :) Thanks, Func( t, c, @, ) 02:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Divine Right of Admins

Until one of them can cure scrofula by touch, I won't believe they deserve absolute power. I think I figured out and articulated why the recent business has me so livid. Unfortunately, I posted it on user talk:Radiant. Basically, I see trepidation over saying anything harsh to Tony as being of a single piece with timidity about addressing Ed Poor. Geogre 03:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Why unfortunately? You can repost it in all sorts of places, if you want. Maybe you should. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

For blocking the nasty vandal. How did you manage to interpret the Flemish? JFW | T@lk 21:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Flemish is a Dutch dialect, but the use of "ge" instead of "je" or "U" as a personal pronoun gave this anti-Neerlandicist away. Gracias. JFW | T@lk 07:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"North" anon

I encountered a very good reason to stop respecting the SIL-style of infobox layout at user talk:Karmosin#Slovenian or Slovene. If anyone get's so easily confused by nonsense classification like "South" and then "Western", even if it's easy to check, there's clearly something wrong with that layout. The anon has, of course, auto-reverted at sight with the motivation "it looks ugly". It's annoying beyond belief. Could you lend a hand or something?

Well, I'd really like to have something on the Talk page to refer to, how about you writing something linguistic and pithy? Bishonen | talk 15:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Peter ^Isotalo 07:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

On top of this AxSkov, whom I still suspect of being behind those anons, has now moved on to to make quite inappropriate copyedits of harpsichord and not respecting reverts of certain changes. I'm almost getting the sense that there's mild stalking going on. I'd like to RfC pronto, but I don't know how to meet the two-person criteria. Any suggestions?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's ludicrous to go to a different word to avoid the Br/Am spelling wars—what an idea! But believe it or not, I've seen that suggested in all seriousness on some policy talk page, and getting some support, too. Unbelievable. Still, don't you think you need a bit more than that for an RFC? But maybe you've got more? If so, I'll be glad to endorse or whatever it's called. Not for stalking, though. See the history tab of Wikipedia:Stalking, now mercifully a redirect, and mind you don't get people associating you with galloperande enfald och hyckleri. This is my opinion of wikistalking: ignore it. Don't talk about it. The contribs button is there for a purpose. If you're being harrassed by means of stalking, complain about the harrassment, not the stalking. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Spelman/pelimanni

I was thinking about writing a short article about the concept of spelman/pelimanni. The question is, what word should be the title. It's spelman in Swedish, pelimanni in Finnish, in Norwegian I honestly don't know nor do I know if they have the word in Danish... The concept is the same throughout the Nordic Folk genre. I don't really think there is a good, accepted term in English. My dictionary says "folk musician, fiddler" and neither is a good description - of course a spelman can be a fiddler, but (s)/he could also play accordeon, nyckelharpa etc.

When Swedish folk music is exported, as far as I can see they usually leave the concepts spelman/spelmansmusik out, and just talk about folk musik but this is less precise. Kulning, spilopipa, instruments made from cow's horns, and songs... these are Swedish folk music, but not "spelmansmusik". Finnish pelimanni music (JPP etc) tend to mention the word pelimanni in their PR material when exported, maybe because Finland has several other strong folk music traditions that are not higly pelimanni related (kantele, rune chanting). Maybe "pelimanni" as a concept is more spread in English than "spelman?" Still, it this case to me it feels a bit odd to choose a Finnish word over the Scandinavian ones... I might be biased here, of course.

It's like, what ever title I choose for it it will be wrong. The least bad version, maybe, is to randomly pick either "spelman" or "pelimani" as the title, and make a redirect from the other version. Whoha, I have already written more text here than I suppose the first version of the article will be... comments are welcome. / Habj 11:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Habj. The Norwegian is speleman or spelleman--I suppose that'll be bokmål and nynorsk respectively. The Danish is spillemand. A few redirects for you there...! Anyway, I've got a reason to suggest for picking pelimanni, kind of a superficial, practical reason: pelimanni is the one that's not an anglophone proper name. Try googling for "spelman" on English-language pages, and you'll see what I mean. Spelman seems to be quite a common name, as well as having some famous representatives who give lots of hits. Speleman is a fairly common name also. Whereas pelimani seems free from such taint. And pelimani is kind of... I hope I don't sound patronizing to Finnish speakers... but it's a really cute word! :-) Hope this nonsense helps. ;-) Bishonen | talk 17:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Arts Towns entry

Please reread the entry as you went into the page and tried to shut it down while it was being edited.

Might be a good idea to give any new page you see a fast glance AND THEN go back a day later before you make a snap judgment on deletions.

Please - not every edits everything at once.

This means extra work for many people who now have to write in and vote for the page to be saved.

Please, consider other people's work, and their time before you make snap decisions.

Hi, please note that you can sign a message on a talkpage by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Well, I didn't make any kind of decision, the community will make the decision. I'm afraid a new page with an unencyclopedic name and little information will always run the risk of being listed on Votes for Deletion, so it's a safer method to create the page with a little more information right away. Votes for deletion aren't majority decisions, btw: pages are most often kept if they get even a few Keep votes (from established users). It takes a Delete majority of 75—80% for a page to be deleted, so if even a sizable minority of voters approve of your page, it'll stay.

Please feel free to vote and comment, as the creator of the page. But I would really appreciate it if you don't ask people who're not wikipedia users to "write in and vote". That's frowned on, and it distorts the voting process if a sudden influx of new users appear merely in order to vote "Keep" on a particular article. (They're welcome to post comments on the vote page, though.) I'm sorry I upset you. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 20:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC).

Drury Garden/Covent Lane

Uhhh, I'm out of my depth, here. First, I found out that the place I'm working has a library that has the new DNB. Is that good news? Well, yeah, sort of. The Gould entry, for example, is taken entirely from Sloane and from some uncited source. However, the thing here is that I wrote Robert Gould, and I got in a mess. Late, late, late in the article, there is a bit about his attempted tragedies. Rival Sisters is no problem. I've got that nailed. The question is Innocence Distress'd. He tried to hand it to Betterton and Barry, which was stupid, but he probably had no choice (probl because of his patron). Do I lie in the article? Any corrections appreciated, when time and energy permit. Geogre 19:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Having the new DNB is a lot better than having nothing (which is my own case) but for minor 17th-century figures, it's just having the old DNB. I suppose that can't be totally true if they use Sloane for Gould, but it's my general impression. I don't have access and can't check, but I think the Vanbrugh entry is still full of errors and takes no account of the 1980s standard biography. Just like the latest EB, if it comes to that. (Whereas Wikipedia's Vanbrugh entry is cutting edge.) But alas, me, I know even less. You remember how brilliantly well-informed I used to be, back in May-June? That was because I had trial access to the wonderful EEBO full-text database. That's been disconnected—it's just like they disconnected part of my brain. :-( And I don't even have The London Stage at home any more, the library has most unfairly recalled it, in defiance of the Squatters' Rights principle. Not that I'd expect to find much in them, but being able to look woould be something. How about you post me, or attach to an e-mail or something, what exactly the DNB says about Innocence Distress'd? Because it sounds very fishy. There was only one company in 1689, the United Company. Betterton was the unofficial manager, he ran things, he could probably have put on any play he wanted. Barry was just an actress. There wasn't a theatre called Covent Garden. The Drury Lane playhouse was in the Covent Garden *area*, I guess. But it was just a house, one of the company's two playhouses, as far as I know. The one where they put on legit plays. The whole business about asking Betterton and Barry in 1689 just sounds wrong. That ought to have happened in or after 1695. The whole report comes from Gould himself, I suppose? (Judith Milhous: "a particularly unreliable reporter where his own work was concerned"). You don't have Sloan, do you? I don't know where to look. It's an unpublished play. :-( I can get the text of it all right, from the 1737 edition, but what use is that? Sorry. Bishonen | talk 00:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

See, that was the problem. I ended up lying with my own voice, there. The new DNB is pathetically brief with Gould. Everything they have is Sloan, of course, except for one "fact" I've never heard before -- that Gould was the "friend" of John Oldham. They merely say that Inocence Distress'd was never performed. I wanted to specify that the guy tried really hard to get it performed, that he tried, and he was furious when he was held to account for having pointed out what B&B's parents did for a living. So, there I was, trying to guess where he took it, and I don't know the theaters. In essence, then, you've already answered my question. It was The United Company, run more or less by Betterton. Gould reports that Barry had a lot to do with Betterton nixing the play, though he gives Betterton full credit for being (in his opinion) petty. In a way, RG might be a good eye witness to how much power she already had at the time, if not about his own works. Geogre 06:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I was delighted to take a poke at Nussbaum in the article. Geogre 06:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Arts Towns

Google has the following citations of a term you call a "neologism".

Results 1 - 10 of about 5,490,000 for arts towns. (0.49 seconds)

The entry on arts towns has been expanded, and you are redirected to reappraise your vote for deletion of this article based on the materials that were included. Small towns in America have a very tough time attracting tourists, and there are at least 50,000 artists in these art towns in North America who earn a living based on tourism, and their works being known. Please support this work, and please realize that cutting flowers off before they grow is not likely to make a beautiful garden.

thank you.

Please be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promotional interests, however worthy they may be. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Bish, thank you for your support, your kind words, and for my Tightrope Award, which now has pride of place on my user page, and which I'll treasure. I've put it next to the gun El C awarded me for when people are too heavy or too annoying for my shoulders. ;-D Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Faberge egg

A long time ago you gave me a certain award, "for all your great work". It's pretty and I treasure it. I don't know whether you have your own ideas about it and whether you have awarded it to others. I would like to give this award to a very small number of people, just one at first, who have humbled me with their grace. I am not capable of producing such pretty pictures myself, but I hope that the idea will strike you as a worthy one. I intend to pass on the torch as a recognition of greatness of spirit. Not mine to pass on, in all honesty, but perhaps a way by which we might encourage the best in one another. I would pass the award to someone who demonstrated graceful attributes that I could only aspire to. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Help!!!

Oh, am I ever glad I caught you over on "recent changes!" User:Wiki brah is either developmentally disabled to the point of no return or a malicious Internet troll of the worst kind. Bish, I tried to be this guy's friend and all he's done is disrupt the site. One moment he can't type a coherent word, the next he claims to be high on cocaine. Take a look at his RfC page and please tell me I'm justified in yanking this account immediately: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wiki brah. Thanks! - Lucky 6.9 02:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I love you. I'm on the verge of a long wikivacation over this guy myself. Wave bye-bye to the nice troll. - Lucky 6.9 02:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Bisgh, I am kind of mentally different and like to do things that people dont approve of necessarliy but how would you like it if you were locked in your parents big house all alone most of the time either with just a computer and a TV?? I DO have friends but they have to come over and see me most of the time and I can't go see THEM without supervision. If have some money from my parents but can't really live alone yet and I don't know when. So a lot of my time is just sitting here :( Now Lucky wants to banish me for doing drugs. Well what would you do if it was after midnight and you hadn't gone out in 2 days either? I"m sorry, do what you have to do but please try to undrestand me.Wiki brah 02:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you don't seem very blocked. Lucky, I've blocked him myself, what are you waiting for? Bishonen | talk 02:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

All done. I'm sorry to drag you into this, but this guy has been wreaking havoc for two weeks and goes for the sympathy card every time he's called out. Thanks for the support. I hope I've done the right thing and not overstepped my bounds. - Lucky 6.9 02:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, so we've both blocked him, we'll go down together. :-) You did the right thing, Ralph. I saw, I've been following it somewhat, even. I saw you falling for the sympathy card, like the too-nice sap that you are! ;-) Seriously, though, a guy who'll exploit people's nicest instincts like that needs to be off the wiki. Bishonen | talk 02:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Bish, you are the best. I am so sorry to have dragged you into this, seeing as how I'm such a sap.  :) Seriously, I hope not to take a fall and I'm sure you won't either. I just don't want a reputation as a "rogue administrator" because of this user's shenanigans. - Lucky 6.9 02:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Nono, it's "rouge admin"! :D Bishonen | talk 03:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it would get in my moustache! Wokka-wokka! - Lucky 6.9 03:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

LIBRIS

To make a permanent link to a LIBRIS post, click on "Länka till posten" (in the middle below the entry), and use the URL given on that page. You can link to a search result list the same way ("länka till träfflistan"). Uppland 13:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, cool, thanks! Do you know of a trick for the Library of Congress also? Bishonen | talk 13:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, no, there seems to be no way to do that there. Uppland 12:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair

Bishonen,

just to let you know that the "consensus" and unprotection was reached when i was either gone or not paying attention. i fixed a few technical things (regarding the name of the relevant newsgroup, and a pointer to it). but i have to object to "Some claim it to be a hoax, while others claim it to be simply sloppy work plagued by errors, and some theoretical physicists think highly of their theories" as not reflecting accurately the bonafide position of the physics community. like Intelligent Design, there is very little debate regarding the quality of Bogdanoff's papers. more than 95% of theoretical physicists believe their "work" to be literally "bullshit". saying "Most physicists understand it to be a hoax or at least to be sloppy work plagued by numerous errors, while some theoretical physicists think highly of their theories." is granting a lot of consideration to the brothers. more than they deserve. r b-j 15:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Rbj, I'll reply on Talk:Bogdanov Affair. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Move page

Hello again Bishonen. Could you please move Uppsala municipality to Uppsala Municipality? Thanks.

Fred-Chess 23:16, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Bishonen | talk 01:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Requesting comment(s)

Hi, I was just reading your user page and thought maybe you might be interested in the vfd for Bifauxnen that I filed recently. Any comments would help. Thanks. —Tokek 03:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Please block this teenage troll

Please block HelloMyNameis (talk · contribs) / 202.156.2.58 (talk · contribs) I have already reverted him three times on Åland (history), where he has been adding nonsense on a war between Åland and Luxembourg in 1993. See this message on my talkpage for identity between username and IP. Oh, and another lovely message left on my talkpage here. Uppland 13:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Move articles 2

Hi again. I think that all "x municipality" articles should be moved for conformity because we have decided to treat "X Municipality" as a administrative term and not as a translation of the name.

I think this can be safely done to all municipalities. City of Västerås -> Västerås Municipality.

Further: Kalmar municipality, Arjeplog municipality, Grästorp municipality, Götene municipality, Linköping municipality , Landskrona municipality, Norrköping municipality, Övertorneå municipality. Sorry to bother you correcting my mistakes, but I think it needs to be done at some time...

Fred-Chess 19:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Nemas problemas. Done. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok good. Thanks. Fred-Chess 21:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Do you know if there is a bug reason why it doesn't show on my watchlist? Fred-Chess 21:24, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I don't think I ever have seen a page move show up on my own watchlist. Maybe they just don't. It is a little odd, though. They do show up in the article history, and in my "Contributions", so in a sense they clearly count as "edits". Bishonen | talk 21:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Matthew Brettingham

I see nothing essayish about Saleiri and Mozart, merely a revelation that the author is a cultivated, sophisticated, rather stylish and educated intellectual, with an appreciation of fine music.

In a crocodile suit. Bishonen | talk 13:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Apart from that thank you for you valued support during this fraught difficult and troubled time of worry. Giano | talk 12:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The flaming dil-- does

Well, I added the infamous passage to Robert Gould and put up an unedited Love Given O'er on Wikisource. The way I figure it, that just means fewer people will seek out the also totally unedited Grove reprint of the poem, "edited" by Felicity Nussbaum. It will increase the desire for an annotated version, and especially one that can compare the 1689 and 1709 versions. So...ha! (And, incidentally, I do not fret over charges of indecency, as the lines use clever dashes, so children will never figure out what's being described.) Geogre 02:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. One of the strange things about Wikipedia is that one does end up having substantial power to start things. Putting in the dig at Nussbaum will, actually, have some power -- at least so far as 18th c. Britlit currency goes. Geogre 14:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Standardising templates

In regards to a valuable contributor leaving (dare I say it) - as none of my contributions seem to be valued, it might not be only Giano who leaves. If you want to see how ridiculous this site is getting, have a look at the GNAA FAC and check out what Kosebame has written. He is objecting to the article reaching FA status because he says that the GNAA are only notable on Wikipedia! How one person can get things so wrong is beyond me.

As for standardising things: if we want the site to look and be as professional as the EB, some standardisation is going to have to happen. Looks like noone wants to do this, so it looks like we'll look like shit when it comes to presentation. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt you had to delete your pages, and I'm trying hard, in view of your posts on Talk:John Vanbrugh and above, to not view it as an act of petulance. I'm also sorry you think John Vanbrugh looks like shit. I don't own it, but I put a lot of work into it. Bishonen | talk 08:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh gosh - some of my favourite editors falling out :( I respect you all: please everyone take a deep breath and count to 10. The number of good authors and editors who leave is quite depressing: I would not want to see the body count increase.

Ta bu, of course we value your contributions, but I am sure that you are aware that Bishonen and Giano have also produced (in my opinion) some of the best articles on Wikipedia. Of course they don't "own" their articles: in my experience, they are quite open to anyone copyediting, formatting, adding extra information, etc, so long as it enhances an article. As you are in Exploding whale, also one of my favourite articles. But their opinion should surely count for something, particularly as they are the primary authors. Edit warring is just daft.

Despite the effort you have put into it, I sorry to say that I really can't see the merit in GNAA: suffice it to say that I am not the only one, and many others have spent enough time on that subject already.

Given the concidence of the above, I suspect that you may be suffering from some wikistress at the moment: would it help to take a wikibreak for a short while? It often surprises me how things move on in my absence, almost always for the better, and RealLife puts it all back into to some context. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Cartoon physics

You should take a look at this.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Said the chicken to the chicken

Hi Bishonen, I don't know if you still remember, but once, a long time ago, you said to me "ain't nobody here but us chickens"^ref. Well, I feel "lonely chicken" on this one, a new guideline I happen to think might be an asset to Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). I see you're very busy, nonetheless I'd welcome any criticism (positive or negative) on the talk page of that proposed guideline! --Francis Schonken 14:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

About the WP:ANI:

• I was aware of it.
• See for example: User_talk:Scimitar#Hi_Scimitar.2C, and then User_talk:Francis_Schonken#Sockpuppetry
• Least stirred, the better, I suppose for the time being.
• That was one of the detractors for getting started with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). They're all so comfy in their endless disputes, that someone trying to cut that short is being shot at (that's an oversimplification, nonetheless true).

About your other problem:

• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Ordinals has "for monarchs this is often combined with the previous"
• "the previous" being "<First name> of <Location>" format - was that not clear?

--Francis Schonken 04:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the example made me think there was something I wasn't getting. It's perfect now, thanks. Have you heard the music hall song "Henry VIII", supposed to be sung by the eighth husband of an inveterate Henry-marrier?

"She was married seven times before,

Every one was an 'Ennery,

'Ennery the Eighth I am,

I'm 'er eighth ole man!"

Or words to that effect. Best, Bishonen | talk 06:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems a fun song - I imagine it in the vein of the "Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer" song. Just popping by to tell you that I copied (a small part) of our conversation to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#The unclarity for royals issue (continued) - Hope that's OK?

So everything set for further in-depth commentaries to the guideline, if you'd still have any.

I think about proceeding as follows:

• Put it on Wikipedia:naming conventions, in the "Conventions under consideration" section

and/or

• file it on RfC/Wikipedia:Current_Surveys#Discussions

What'd you think? Or would it still be too early for such steps?--Francis Schonken 15:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi again

Before you sigh too loud, Bishonen, I'm not doing this for my own amusement, and secondly, it doesn't seem as though I have become an admin yet, so what can I do? :-)

Articles move request:

• vänersborg municipality -> Vänersborg Municipality
• kiruna municipality -> Kiruna Municipality
• Munkedal municipality -> Munkedal Municipality
• Östra Göinge -> Östra Göinge Municipality
• Solna -> Solna Municipality
• Sollentuna municipality -> Sollentuna Municipality

I was hesitant about Solna and Östra Göinge because we might warrant separate articles about those anyways, but this is not certain, and it would look wrong to have them in that format when every other article is not. The others I had missed in the list of municipalities.

Thanks again. // Peace Fred-Chess

To relieve Bish from carrying around all these heavy webpages (don't forget she is busy caring for the two goats Giano has left in her userspace), I moved all but one of these. They did not require being an admin to do so. If the move target only contains a redirect to the "movee", and has only been edited once (a redirect created from scratch or through a previous move of the page with all its history), there are no problems making the move. --Uppland 05:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool, thanks, Tups, Östra Göinge moved also, you and I make a great removal team. No problems, Fred, we all appreciate your looking out for naming consistency. The baby goat above actually isn't as Sicilian as you'd think, it comes from that inveterate one-man petting zoo, El C. :-) Bishonen | talk 06:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well El C like cat's better, so I'm going to kid-napp it - geddit? Giano | talk 06:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Good Evening

At last ten minutes to return and have a look around, as usual I go away for five minutes and return to chaos. Why exactly is John Vanbrugh protected? - how many more have to make their feelings felt on that subject, and as for poor old Matthew Brettingham he is still languishing on FARC, and "Ta bu whatsit" who caused all the problems is flouncing around the encyclopedia like a second-rate prima donna in a tawdry tu tu declaring Garboesque he wants to be left alone, but still editing from a number which everyone know is him - all very confusing! Well, I think, he's jolly lucky no-one spotted him breaking the three revert rule on John Vanbrugh or he would be alone for a while. Did he leave for half an hour because of me or that horrible "Gay nigger thing", will one ever know - do you suppose? I'm back properly on Monday, so will pick the goats up then, give them a pat. Have fun. Giano | talk 06:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

TBSDY got stressed by those things and more, I gather. Just ignore the FARC, not a single soul has voted remove on Matthew Brettingham, so what do you care if it sits there for a while? I'd remove it myself, except I don't feel very welcome on that page. When I saw that Netoholic was continuing TBSDY's edit war at John Vanbrugh on behalf of the box, I mentioned it on IRC and asked for some uninvolved admin to take a look at the history and see if they thought the page ought to be protected (note that I didn't by any means ask for protection, which would hardly have been proper), and Phroziac did. I may add that he seemed quite indignant at TBSDY's actions as seen in that history. Since there is surely consensus on the talk page, and Netoholic reverted against that consensus without giving any argument or explanation, let him try to work it out. Bishonen | talk 07:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the poor thing needs a long soothing wiki break, or some guidance from a caring sharing admin. (no not you Dear); but I shall give the choice some thought. Although in the long run does one really care? - It's late I'm going to bed. Giano | talk 07:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi

I was just following some links and wondered why the fabulous User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder had been deleted. It was a fabulous piece. Was it saved somewhere else ? Anthere

Oh. Cough. Well, no, it wasn't. I asked Mark to delete it because the joke got old, and because I'd acquired some personal associations that made me like it less. I consulted Giano (see above), who wrote a lot of it, and he agreed. The third main contributor has left the project, and I can't believe he'd care. It's true that other editors got into the spirit of the joke and contributed, and I do appreciate that and am grateful to them for the fun and games, but, well, it is a userpage, or it was. I hope I haven't hurt their feelings, or those of any of the nice people who've told me it made them laugh. There's nothing to stop any admin who cares from undeleting it temporarily and sticking a copy in their own space, or whatever — I have no objection. Any non-admin only has to ask me, and I'll do it for them. Maybe we'll see some forks. :-) Bishonen | talk 07:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I need your help

Hey Bishonen, its been a long time since I've had a moment to stop and chat with you on IRC. I want to make sure that everything is OK with you before I go on to ask you for your help. It seems that User:Karmosin has decided that since his proposal for the introparagraph of the Hong Kong article was rejected on the talk page, he is going to take the argument to articles for deletion. Would you mind going to take a look at the argument going on there about the article Pronunciation of Hong Kong? The argument is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pronunciation of Hong Kong. Thank you! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 18:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Order of the Flaming, Dancing Hellpot to Bishonen

Order of the Flaming, Dancing Hellpot to Bishonen

I would like to award you the Order of the Flaming, Dancing Hellpot for your ability to sniff out troublemakers (like our logo-loving friend from L.A.) and your willingness to send them where they belong. paul klenk 20:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Ditto! Thank you!!

Fairly soon after I started editing I ended up involved in the Netoholic RFAR, which in my opinion went on way too long, and the ArbComm was way too lenient on him. His mentorship lasted longer than I would have predicted, but it still failed in the end. I almost quit editing the Wikipedia after that RFAR. Since the I have tried, for the most part, to stay away from difficult editors and controversial articles. Still, even when I was deliberately trying to keep a fairly low profile, I ended up having to deal with a problem editor. It's rather discouraging and makes me wonder what the social dynamics of the Wikipedia are going to be like in a couple of years, in 5 years, in 10 years. BlankVerse ∅ 20:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad it brought a smile. paul klenk 21:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting...more fun than the average Barnstar! Got your message, kiddo. Excellent idea. I'll mention it on the VfD for that current one. Some freaking vacation.  :) - Lucky 6.9 02:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Bish, check your e-mail if you would. I just left a private message there. THanks. - Lucky 6.9 02:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Bish, send me an e-mail with a link to the IRC thing - I tried to find it the other day but was unsuccessful. paul klenk 16:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Bish, in case you're wondering where the flaming hellpot came from, take a look at this page which I authored: New_York's_Village_Halloween_Parade paul klenk 15:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Very cool article! :-) Have you thought of grooming it for WP:FAC? Please see Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, though: avoid linking such general concepts as child, United States, or friends (er, that one leads to the sitcom). Bishonen | talk 15:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I will tone down the wiki, thanks for pointing it out. Also, one day I will present it for FAC, but right now I am compiling and formatting my many sources. Glad you like it. paul klenk 16:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"

Hi there. Thought you might be interested to know that I've added a (very) little bit more information to this article, and a couple of useful links to talk. It might be possible to work up a better synopsis of the Phelps play from Google hits - it seems to be popular with am dram groups - but given the quality of the rest of this article, I'm reluctant to rely just on that. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Kammerlader

Hi. I applogies for 'spamming' your talkpage like this, but some time ago you was helpfull with comments on one of 'my' other articles on old Norwegian rifles and I wondered if you might be interested in helping out peer reviewing the article on the Kammerlader. Thank you for your time. WegianWarrior 11:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair again

Hi, Igor Bogdanov is (again) multi-reverting the page tonight... I'd guess it's time to block the page for some time on your last version. --YBM 21:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the deleting of your message, I haven't been warned of a conflicting editing. It may happen sometimes I guess (race condition in the wikipedia software ?), I usually take care. --YBM 20:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

's OK, I assumed it was a mistake, with the moving around of stuff you were doing. Good initiative straightening out the section mess! Bishonen | talk 21:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

After checking the history page I still don't understand how could have your post disappeared after my editing. Especially because I remember clearly having read it just after editind. Anyway, it's one more mystery in wikipedia, I'll probably know more when I'll manage to hack it ;-) --YBM 21:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me?

When have I trolled and made personal attacks recently? I beg to differ. If calling out admitted sockpuppets with sockpuppet warnings is trolling, then their is a serious issue with the system. Please provide someting showing that I was giving you justification for a block. Have a good day! 67.18.109.218 19:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

All right, examples: [2], [3], [4]. But your whole contribs list is a horror story, as far down as I've read. Please note that abusive edit summaries are particularly ill regarded. Your turn: you show me something constructive you've done recently. You know, something to do with building an encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

RE:Imdaking

I was going to remove it before you send the message, but I was reading a message paul sent me via email, I will do that now. .::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | Down!} 21:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

£1000,000 or the Kid's a stew

All major credit cards accepted! The Godfather

Well I guess the community doesn't "owe me one" after all ;-)

Although I had not yet finished adding evidence, or making my case, the ArbCom has already closed it. So perhaps I shouldn't have bothered. Paul August ☎ 00:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I saw that before you messaged me, and challenged Raul over it on IRC. Basically, reading your reply to Raul on WP:RFAR now, I made the same points on IRC. But I'll e-mail you tomorrow, I need to get up in a few hours. Bishonen | talk 01:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest in this. It's easy to feel like a lone voice in the wilderness. As an aside, while I'm sure IRC is a very useful tool, I really wish folks would try and conduct these kind of policy/procedural discussions in a more public place where all of us can participate, and where there is a public record, to which we all can refer. It kind of makes the rest of us feel like outsiders, and it enforces the perception (I hope wrong) that important decisions are being made in smoke-filled back rooms. Paul August ☎ 02:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

RE:talk page

Youre welcome, By the way, will the page be deleted, since it's uselwss now? .::Imdaking::. ^{TLK | Y!} 02:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to disappear the comments on it. It should be merged with your regular talkpage and then deleted, really. I'll think about it, and take a look tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 03:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

User talk:XAL

I'm a-looking, and I'm a-pondering. I'm not sure yet. Prolly tonight. Geogre 13:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Given user:XAL's posts of Sept. 14, as well as the fact that that particular user talk page contained nothing aside from the Welcome Wagon message and then insults that had been transplanted there (i.e. it was not being used by the user to communicate), the user has gotten another 24 hour block, and the user talk page has been deleted as, basically, a libel page. The psychological state of the user is of no concern to me, and neither is the truth value of the article that he or she works upon. Wikipedia is not a place to arbitrate Ultimate Truth, convince the heathens, or negotiate the rules of the physical world, and so it wouldn't matter to me if the user were 100% correct in every opinion -- the material posted by this user is nothing but insults, and, if there are fact claims made, they are indecipherable by being krill floating in an ocean of invective. I see nothing salvagable here and believe that a much, much longer block would be warranted, given the patient and repeated warnings, admonitions and exhortations. Geogre 13:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Geogre, and compare my recent post on WP:ANI. You might want to have a word with Nicholas Turnbull on IRC, also. He's attempting to help the user request mediation—I'm frankly not sure with who—on WP:TINMC, so he might see it as counterproductive to block her. Or at least, it would be good to discuss it with him. Bishonen | talk 14:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Geogre? I think you need to create a new usertalk page, to tell her she's been blocked and why. She's very unfamiliar with wiki, and didn't exactly catch hold of what she saw of the block message last time. She needs something she can find, and return to, and read more than once. Bishonen | talk 14:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I waited 24 hr after her last complaint and added a paragraph on the talk page just to explain that the block keeps going. Now Bratsche's about to give up on helping her. If Nicholas sticks it out, he'll have earned his hermitage. I actually think this is not the run of the mill sort of trilingual misunderstanding followed by edit warring and a desire to poot in the punch. Geogre 13:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The Crime

Bish, if you, by any chance, are considering some punishment of Giano for the cruel, vile, wicked and villainous kid-napping, may I suggest a stint of forced labour on creating much-needed articles on Neo-Renaissance and Neo-Baroque? (The second one is just a redirect to Baroque.) --Uppland 10:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a horse you love Uppland? Then lock the stable door! 10:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

User 67.18.109.218

I see that you've scolded and warned User 67.18.109.218 for obnoxious behavior. This user made an unfounded "Sockpuppet" accusation and vandalized my User page. He/she should be blocked. --AStanhope 17:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. I see they did, sorry about that. But I'm not ready to block the IP right now, since I warned him/her I'd block them if they made more nuisance edits, which they haven't so far. Bishonen | talk 19:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the nuisance edit that I reverted that alerted him to me: [5] --AStanhope 21:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Not following you, sorry. 81.117.200.60's contribs are certainly a depressing sight also, but are you saying 81.117.200.60 and 67.18.109.218 are the same person? Why? Bishonen | talk 21:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Imdaking/Complaints

Re: User talk:Imdaking/Complaints: User:Imdaking seems to be behaving himeself for the time being, except for his initial outburst directed at User:Paul Klenk after the block period ended. If there will be no problem resurrecting the page if it is ever needed for an AFAr, then I have no objections to your deleting the page. Otherwise, I would say it might be better to blank it and then protect it again. PS: I appreciated your asking me. BlankVerse ∅ 18:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Blanking would be preferrable to me, as well. Thanks to all. paul klenk 21:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Looking for a job?

Pleas expand here [6] it's more or less your subject (well, actually it's not, bit I'm sure you can invent something suitable) if you do I'll let you have some of the glory when it's an FA. You can also copy edit the lot if you like, I'm away for most of the day! You are kind! Giano | talk 06:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Is Cornelis image OK?

You haven't commented. If it is OK, then I will remove the request on SWNB to do list. Regards, Fred-Chess 20:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

DUCKPRAMS!

You like them, don't you? :-P --WikiFanatic

So-so. I don't like words in all caps, though. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Palazzo Pitti

Thankyou for the copy edit; I note your interest in the sanitation; but are you sure you don't know anything about classical Italian theatre costume, surely you must know something - anything at a;; will do. Its got to be much longer before it can be an FA - you don't think it reads like an essay do you? Giano | talk 16:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello

I dont know why you are very unfirnednly to me I mean I am just doing my best but you are always calling my templates "rubbish" which is not very nice and quite unecessarily caustic. Just look at this one I spend a lot of time on:

If nothing else aren't the colors nice and pretty? I love clors and making and designing one day I might want to design women's clothse and shoes. I'd make some for you if you want! Dlo you want wedge heels or the traditional one with your platforms. What color? Open toe for sure I'd dsay.Wiki brah 16:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't said anything about your templates, or anything to you at all. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahem, then please explain this: "his specialty is creating lots of rubbish stubs and templates, which get deleted and disappear from the list." here That is you saying something about my templates. Is it not? Please explain your last statement.Wiki brah 16:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I'd totally forgotten about that. It was six days ago! I've done a lot of editing since then. You caught me a little unawares by asking why I'm "always" being unfriendly "to you", and "always" calling your templates rubbish. I assumed you were talking about something I'd said to you. And recently. And more than once ("always" usually means that). Sorry I forgot about the sock check request, you're quite right, I did call your templates and stubs rubbish. I said it because I think it. "Partying with hot sluts in Brazil" is about as far away from an encyclopedic topic as it's possible to get. About the sock accusation, though, please note that that doesn't come from me. I don't for myself think you and Imdaking are the same person, you don't seem that way to me. I was basically more putting a sock check request made by other people on WP:ANI in a better place for it, i. e. David Gerard's talk page. However, I do think you're both nuisance editors with a net negative effect on Wikipedia, at least you've been so far. Hopefully you can change and start to contribute usefully. Bishonen | talk 18:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Nuovo Yorko

No. I was expecting that, change what you like in that respect, we, are destined to have to live, by others' city and country definitions, I've thought about moving the page to Palazzo Pitti, what do you think of that? Or would that be too hard for those few tourists brave enough to visit Europe. Great copy edit, I've made a few changes accordingly, d'you think it nees to be longer - aso i think there is too little on the museume etc, do you think the minor ones neeed rounding up under one banner? PS: Are tickets to Brazil very expensive - it sounds like my kind of place. Giano | talk 18:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• If you know how to move it - then move it, and I'll compromise on Firenze, allthough Firenze sounds much nicer, Florence like a maiden great aunt - who smells! Giano | talk 06:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Don't worry too much I'm having a huge rethink about the whole FA thing altogether. I've just seen the tag at Talk: Matthew Brettingham encouraging anyone who has the whim justified or not to renominnate Matthew Brettingham for FARC. I really don't think I care for anything I'm still strongly associated with to have that tag placed on it; its like: "this page is OK, just - but thousands think it's rubbish so why not come out and say so - lets try again" No, I'm not about to leave in a huff, bit sometimes some of the cranky workings of this site certainly cause a huff. It one thing to have "FA failed", that encourages improvement, but what is "if you don't like renominate to FARC" supposed to encourage? Giano | talk 07:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the move, Firenze is now Florence. World has altered the template, it's better, but I still don't see why it has to be there. I shall have a hump for a couple of days. People (and you) may leave messages on my talk page begging me to stay which I shall consider. Giano | talk 15:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Good thing I don't

take credit for rewrites much. :-) Cf. before and after Richard Blackmore -- I got to the DNB today is all, and I noticed a thing or two interpretive that explains a thing or two about him. Geogre 01:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: User:KnowledgeLoser

Hehe—thanks, Bishonen and Chris, for your sharp eyes. I did find it pretty amusing, though. It looks like User:Iasson was upset that I blocked User:Bank Able today. At least this was more creative than the tired old user-page vandalism. And this is my first real impostor! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. how do you know this is an imposter? Fred-Chess 06:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

From the history of its userpage, Fred. Look at the first version of the page: from who created it, together with what was being claimed on it, I knew the creator had to be either a troll, or a sockpuppet of Knowledge Seeker. I couoldn't be sure which, but a question to Knowledge Seeker cleared it up: troll. Bishonen | talk 07:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

your changes to the FAC instructions

I could cope with the removal of the expansion to point 6 (what not to write at the top of a nomination), but I will argue strongly that the additional signpost in point 1, concerning the need to have nominations copy edited thoroughly beforehand, should stay. Substandard prose was becoming a serious problem in the nominations, and I think (although I'm not certain) that the problem has lessened since the recent expansion of point 1. Clearly, nominators either had a distorted sense of the standards that apply ('compelling, even brilliant' prose) or weren't reading the criteria.

As a contributor who has put a lot of time and effort into trying to raise the standards of prose in the nominations, I thought that something needed to be done. When I comment on poor prose in nominations, I feel I need either to roll my sleeves up and fix it myself, or quote several examples and pull them apart; it's a lot of work. That is why I acted, and no one has since complained. I wouldn't mind if the italic highlighting in point 1 were softened to roman. Tony 00:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Bishonen, thanks for your message; I've interpolated my responses into it. I hope you don't mind my pasting our dialogue into the FAC discussion page.

Tony, I appreciate your good intentions and the urgency that made you expand the instructions. But I do think it's bloat to add specifics on one aspect of one of the (many) criteria, right next to the link to the criteria themselves. Nominators need to either make very sure to click on that link, or else several other specially important points need to be mentioned up front (which I'm against, as creating more bloat). I'm pretty sure lack of references, for instance, is as frequent a problem as lack of copyediting.

I've since pruned some of the additions in response to your comments, but your objection, I suspect, still applies to what remains. Lack of references, image copyright issues, and poor prose appear to the be most common complaints of reviewers. However, fixing poor prose, in my view, is usually the task that takes considerably more time, effort and skill than fixing the first two problems (not always, but usually). Poor prose is what will stick out when Wikipedia parades featured articles to the world. That's why I'm arguing that it be emphasised, and singled out for extra mention in the instructions.

Perhaps you might edit the criteria page further instead (I see you already did), to emphasize the need for copyediting?

I've already significantly simplified the wording and formatting of the criteria, and shifted greater emphasis onto prose by moving it into first position (that was one of the few substantive changes in meaning that I made). I don't know what more you can say in the one place than 'compelling, even brilliant' prose. That's why I thought another signpost elsewhere was called for.

Though I also stand by my remark about it looking condescending to tell everybody to go get somebody else to copyedit before nominating. Wouldn't you agree that there are articles that are good to go directly from the hands of the author/s/..?

I'm not sure that I agree; I'm a professional editor, yet on occasions I've hired someone else to edit my text when it really matters. It's the 'fresh pair of eyes' that just about all text needs, even text that has been produced by good writers. Perhaps we could soften the wording ('strongly recommended'?).

My overriding concern is that the instructions be kept simple and practical. Following Bishonen's Law, they will naturally tend to be always growing, as people add their own special concerns over time, while hardly anybody ever removes anything. I know Raul654 agrees with me in general, in fact it's Raul's ruthless pruning that has kept the FAC instructions so nice and simple compared to those of Peer Review. It wasn't very long since you made the additions, so it's possible that no one complained because no one noticed yet; the longer the instructions are, the more cursorily they'll probably be read, that's the problem.

I agree with all of these points, but I'd like to see the additional clause in point 1 retained.

I've also helped raise the standards of prose on WP:FAC, both before and after articles are nominated. For instance, some teenagers have caught a habit of asking my help on IRC ("Bish, u r a grammar nazi, will u proofread my FAC?" :-) No, I haven't heard more of those pleas since you made your changes). I've authored a number of FAs myself, see e. g. The Country Wife and its vote if you're interested. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 08:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony 09:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

from Paul

I am really at my wits end with this guy. Bish, would you please keep an eye on the page Los_Angeles_Department_of_Transportation, and its author Imdaking. It is a clear copyvio, and I have now blanked the content. Imdaking is challenging that it was ever placed there, and says the tag will be removed.

I even got a note from Pacific Coast Highway telling me I hadn't reported it correctly. I took his word for it. Now, I see that it's been on the copyright problem page since Sept. 12.

I will also notify Lucky. paul klenk ^talk 03:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the article, the copyvio notice states, "If you have just labeled this page as a possible copyright infringement, please add a link to it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 September 23" and the link was not added. paul says it was added since sept. 12, those are two different dates. It would help if klenk would add the correct date to avoid confusion.

"I also notified luky." --.::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | DOWN} 03:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think this may all be a simple mistake. I'm assuming that Imdaking may have thought that just because the info came from a municipal government site that it was public domain. Just my two cents' worth. - Lucky 6.9 03:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• I don't believe Imdaking has ever made any assertion about its gov't status.
• He is confused about the "Sept. 23" date thing (see above), as that date is in a link, and is always based on the current date, or current date plus one. If you check all the articles listed by date on the Copyvio page, that same link on every page always appears to be current. Coming on the heels of a strange notice today from Pacific Coast Highway, or whatever his name is, this whole thing stinks to me. paul klenk ^talk 03:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

Fvw, check your wikipedia e-mail, please? Bishonen | talk 09:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing, perhaps wikipedia mail is still suffering from the causes of the outage earlier? Try resending or mailing me directly (fvw.wikipedia@var.cx). --fvw* 09:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Or try IRC, I'm in #en.wikipedia at the moment. --fvw* 09:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

FAC post

Sure thing, done. Tony 14:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Email

Check now! Hmph! Giano | talk 15:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Block Alert

I should go to bed rather than bother you. But I would appreciate a release of the following block -- different AOL IP number again. Thanks. WBardwin 06:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jtkiefer. The reason given is this: vandalism Your IP address is 64.12.116.139.

Oh, no, here we go again. :-( But I see Jtkiefer got it. I just hope it doesn't mark the start of another spate. Bishonen | talk 09:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

New template

Due to the sudden, and numerous, increases in template traffic and activity; It has occurred to me to create a template of my own to indicate the numerous pages I have edited, or am thinking of editing, or indeed have read or stumbled upon by chance. In this way I can have my name prominently displayed numerously all over the site, and on even more history files, my edit count will rise, and eventually lead to my own talk page bearing the template "Notable Wikipedian" - a template incidentally for which I am long overdue. It occurred to me you may like to comment on the design of this momentous template, I am thinking of a small cameo foto of me taken on my last beach holiday to Ibiza (a rather flattering foto, as I was 19 at the time) accompanied by the legend "Giano woz here!" In this way other editors can wait with excitement and bated breath for even more numerous appearances of my flowing golden text and frequently punctuating punctuation. I give you the opportunity to be part of this exiting new project as your talk page will be the first to bear this large, colourful and informative template. Giano | talk 06:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• No I don't like your idea at all, I think people need to have the full impact of my presence on a page. I have numerous ideas, all of which include numerous the fotos of me in various poses - perhaps looking studious in my new glasses seated ar my computer, or standing in front of a case of leather bound book, reading a colume, but still with my new glasses - or what about staring out to sea pensively drawing on a cigarette - I'll give it further thought. Giano | talk 12:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Giano, if you can go and add it to 200-400 dead articles, there's no way it can be deleted, too. They'll have to say, on TFD, "in use on 300 pages, so there is clear consensus that it is good." Just go find all those Nutall encyclopedia and Brief Literary Encyclopedia articles: no one actually edits them -- they just get pasted in and forgotten. Geogre 12:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

File:Giano.gif

NUMEROUS (PIXELLY) WIKIPEDIAN

Now that I am about to become even more famous, this is the foto I have selected for my template, not as recent as I would have liked but taken during my days as a hero in the Italian Army. No don't press me, I never talk about it - too modest. More importantly, I thought you may like to read my latest offering Eleonora di Toledo and copy edit - every word is true, I promise; before the dreaded info box appears and despoils poor Eleonora. Its the first time I have used only on-line references but now we are all dumbing down, life is going to be so much easier now - Where does one apply for the "Notable Wikipedian" template do you by any chance know? Giano | talk 20:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Right here. Bishonen | talk 01:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Catty litle edit summary that [7] Giano | talk 12:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, we try! Bishonen | talk 12:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

However, we get reverted. :-(. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ah I could have given you la monde ma cherie [8] mais c'est la vie - but you want more than this. Giano | talk 19:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

going going gone

banana banana banana banana banana banana banana Bishonen | talk 16:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on that? --fvw* 22:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Fruit and nuts Bishonen | talk 22:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...with milk and honey. Func( t, c, @, ) 23:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Mainly nuts I think. --fvw* 23:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

With milk, honey. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What is? The Cherry Orchard, or a person? Geogre 19:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I know what this is about. Banana is probably right in this case. or NPABratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 22:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Take it easy

Take it easy eh? :-) Don't try solve stuff by yourself, always drag as many folks down with you as possible ask other people for help! :-) You're starting to sound a little wikiburnoutish though. Take it easy, I'd hate to see you have to take a long wikibreak ^^;; Kim Bruning 00:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

First goat!

First Goat Goat Goat Goat Goat Goat !

P.S. Here is a picture of a goat, though it may soon be deleted. So, enjoy it while it's yes! Best wishes, El_C 01:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Aww! Thanks, El, you have the best timing! I was just in the right mood to appreciate a friendly goat gesture in this godforsaken place. Bishonen | talk 01:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

.............Come to pappa little goati - here's a nice bowl of your favourite food - I know a nice place for you to come and live Giano | talk 07:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

My devotion to goat cheese is boundless, but it has to be really strong, and goodolive oil! P.S. This was one of the best interwiki edit I ever made, right next to Great tit! Alas, nobody noticed, or if they did, care! Which greatly pleases me, actually. El_C 00:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure they are thrilled to bits to read about Palermo as they ride their camels through the dersert. Giano | talk 06:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Question

Hi Bishonen. I hope you can help me on this... You appear to have some languistical skills, so I come to ask you about changes user 81.109.252.129 made on September 27 (today) that caught my watchlist. Do you know if the expression "died" to be preferred for "passed away" (Such as in this instance)? Fred-Chess 15:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yes, very good edits. The factual and neutral "died" is a lot more encyclopedic than the vaguely religious euphemism "passed away". Bishonen | talk 16:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Aha, ok thanks. Fred-Chess 21:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Comics

As I feared, Hiding auto-reverted my move of American comic book to American comics without any attempt to support his views with references or the likes. He made a post at my talkpage about it without any further argumentation, but with a claim that consensus had already been reached about this issue at WP:CMC.

The current contrived separation of "American comic book" and "British comic" will make any attempt to expand the articles very hard. Some kind of help would be appreciated.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Since Peter supplied no references or sources supporting his move I did not realise I was operating under different provisions. I have however always provided references when asked and am offended at any insinuation otherwise. Hiding talk 14:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you would also like to read Talk:Graphic novel where there is a consensus against a similar move and where I reference the main thrust of my argument. I would therefore also appreciate some neutral help in this matter. And please note I have never once claimed any consensus at WP:CMC. I merely extended an invitation to discuss the matter there, as it seemed the best forum to achieve a consensus on such moves. And it would probably also be best if you directed any questions you have for me to my talk page, rather than on article pages, wouldn't you agree? I'm assuming good faith here, and hope I get the same from everyone else I am dealing with. Thanks for your time and efforts. Hiding talk 15:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, the wiki way of turning people off: frost and fine phrases. You aim a blast of offendedness and displeasure, and you speak of neutral help and good faith. Good luck with the Collaboration of the Fortnight. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I can see there is little more to say. Hiding talk 17:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Angus Ross lives!

Well, I found out that Angus Ross wrote the article on John Arbuthnot for the new DNB. How could I resist using it as my reference work for totally rewriting that article? At least it now tells us something, like how to get a Ph.D. in a single day. Geogre 00:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Block on request

I've seen autoblocks of your requested block come by a few times. Are you sure that the user has a static IP he isn't sharing with anyone else? Otherwise this could be blocking innocent editors. --fvw* 00:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I know, I'm well aware of it. It's not actually a static IP, it's one of those changes-theoretically-but-hardly-ever, and it's not shared. I do keep a lookout and check with the user, as I quite agree this kind of thing simply mustn't be allowed to cause collateral damage. Thanks for keeping an eye out, Frank. Bishonen | talk 01:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Listen to Nafaanra!

Hi Bishonen!

I'm writing this message to you because you are one of the editors who supported Nafaanra language on its way to become a Featured Article. Back in February, quite a few of you asked for sound recordings. I am really excited to let you know that User:Alafo, who came across Wikipedia when googling for Nafaanra, the native language of his wife, has provided us with some fine recordings of the language. I have just added them to the article so that all of us can enjoy the sounds of Nafaanra from Ghana. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

All of us except us Mac users, grrrrrrr.... I got an .ogg runaround, same as only yesterday (when I tried to listen to Peter pronouncing "bishonen")... all right, that's it, I'm downloading Audacity right now.

Looking.. clicking... messing ... removing noise... ha! Loud and clear! How cool is that? I do remember when the people asked for sound recordings, and you sounded like it was the most complete pipedream. I can't believe you found a Nafaanra speaker! :-) Great. Bishonen | talk 12:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Almost can't believe it myself :) — mark ✎ 14:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Giovanni Vaccorini

Thanks for that, I had completely forgotten I had already done him, untill I eloborated him, he's very important to my masterpeice. Do you know how to make it clear it's a sub-page, as he and some others are all part of my theme. I've some wonderful portraits - but wiki has had that - bloody info box, it's like a downmarket Sunday tabloid. Did you see ALoan@s link - that was actually very funny! Very funny indeed. What a nice little goat - is she lonely here? Giano | talk 20:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I think you'll find the RSPCA and the "Società per la prevenzione di crudeltà alle capre siciliane" take a very dim view indeed of people keeping animals all alone, in dark seldom visited places! Whereas my own page is a veritable hive of sparkling conversation and wit Giano | talk 08:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

And becomung more sparkling by the minute - explosive one might almost say! Giano | talk 09:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Time again

Hi Bishonen. Now that the people have started to delete images, I thought I could finally get some of my orphans deleted, images I moved to commons a long time ago. So I started tagging them with "no source", since admins seem ruthlessly happy with deleting those.

But then I remembered that I know two admins who might do that for me even faster. A little embarrising to have to ask you all the time though. I would do it myself, but I still don't seem to have become admin.

Here are my orphans.

Fred-Chess 20:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Poor little orphans! OK, infanticide completed. Uh, are you sure that was right? It just struck me that the Commons images have the same names. I hope I didn't delete those as well, by clicking on your gallery images. If I did, you'd better re-upload them. Btw, did you know you can link to an image without displaying it, by putting a colon first in the name? Like I've done here. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. All these images were uploaded to the local wikipedia. But you are not an admin on wikimedia commons, no?

These images are none the less double redundant. Most have both a .jpg uploaded to commons, and then another improved .png counterpart. In the long run, all jpg images will be replaced with .png's. These were just the really orphaned, the first batch so to speak.

Thanks also for the tip. My intention was actually to initiate a guessing game, believe it or not...

Fred-Chess 21:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Warning

You have violated the spirit of Wikipedia:Edit summary - "edit summaries are not the place to carry on debates or negotiation over the content. Doing this will actually exacerbate the situation, because it naturally encourages the other party to respond in the same manner". In other words, describe your EDIT, don't converse with other EDITORS.

Now then, are you reverting me out of spite? Rivarez is a sock puppet of Wik. You're encouraging him by edit warring. -- Netoholic @ 05:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

To add a personal note, keep in mind that edit summaries travel as a permanent record along with the article. Internal Wikipedia bickering is inappropriate use of the edit summary. It's also the one thing on Wikipedia you cannot undo. -- Netoholic @ 05:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason I reverted you is that I feel strongly about the article's appearance, and disagree with you about the template enhancing it. I don't "own" John Vanbrugh but I put a lot of work into it and care a lot about the subject. I reverted Ta bu shi's insertion of the template on Sept 7, then yours on October 1; you call that "edit warring"...? But I take your point about edit summaries, I'm sorry I referred to the ArbCom thing in such a prominent and permanent place. I'll make a point of using talk pages for anything like that. Bishonen | talk 07:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

PS

I hope you are not too upset about the above edit. Here is the second batch of orphaned jpg COA: Image:Bromölla City Arms.jpg, Image:Surahammar City Arms.jpg, Image:Sorsele City Arms.jpg, Image:Perstorp City Arms.jpg, Image:Piteå City Arms.jpg, Image:Gotland City Arms.jpg.

// Thanks. Fred-Chess 20:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Bah, no, I'm fine. Your babies are gone. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

I did receive it, Bishonen. Thank you, and check you mailbox! Big hugs, Shauri Yes babe? 02:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Shauri, and congratulations on your adminship! Bishonen | talk 14:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You help and you support has been invaluable to me, Bishy. I'll never forget it. I'll always be here just in case you need me, and remember our little pact regarding... well you know what, ok? Warmest hugs! your friend, Shauri! Yes babe? 23:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Igor Bogdanov

Good morning Bishonen,

Thank you for your advise regarding the photo. I just inserted the requested tag on the description page. Hope I did it correctly. Let me know if there is a problem. Thank you again for your kind help which really helped us to achieve a balanced article. Your different posts and interventions were of great influence on its present state. Best to you, Igor

Thanks Igor, you tagged the photo just fine, that's great. Note that you can sign messages on talkpages automagically by typing four tildes, ~~~~, which converts to username plus timestamp when you save. Bishonen | talk 14:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Your apt and well-received declaration...

...has been memorialized at the bottom of this page. paul klenk ^talk

Heh heh. Thank you, Paul, I'm very proud of the flaming dancing hellpot award. Hmmm... I've created some awards, too, maybe I should add one or two to that page. Not the majorly weird ones, I guess, but, well, we'll see. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh, too. By the way, I'm trying to create a (serious) new Babel Barnstar for Translation Work; if you know of a graphic designer Wikipedian, I'd love to know them. paul klenk ^talk 14:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair affair

You did WHAT?! ... Cool!

Have the Ed Poor Memorial Crazy Bastard Audacious Action Barnstar for your work to quieten down this idiotic conflict - David Gerard 18:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Bishonen | talk 18:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually quite a good job ! Meanwhile, User:Igor B. have just violated the 3RR rule :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bogdanov_Affair&oldid=24659870
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=194.206.212.1
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=194.206.212.1

--YBM 18:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No, he hasn't, as far as I can see: he's allowed 3 reverts. But what bugs me is that he's editing logged out again. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Indeed I have not (always prompt to denonciate people, as usual, YBM).

The confusion comes from the fact that Grichka (my brothers) is away from Paris at the moment. During his travels, he plugs in his "PC Card" on his laptop and access network. Since he did not follow the last developements of our conversations, he does not know that he should log in under his name before posting. I will contact him tonight by phone and tell him that. If I did not do it before it is because, frankly, I thought that we had reached an agreement and that the article would not be subject to anymore changes. Helas! it was without counting YBM and his friend RBJ. As I wrote on the article page, I do not think that they are concerned by the common objective to reach a good article. There is something else in their action : desire to destroy? pleasure to "dominate us"? Ego problems? I don't know. But I know that as long as they do not understand the definition of what a "good article" should lool like (which does not mean a positive article about us) and accept the rules of Wikipedia, we will not reach any consensus.

Igor

There was no agreement, Igor, there were only people catching their breath and leaving it on "my" version for a while. Note that I don't particularly endorse "my" version, either. I improved the article by removing two frankly terrible rants (one on each side) from it, but I fully expect that it can stand further improvement. Please, the both of you, now that I'm about to remove my "in use" flag, edit constructively. If the other person's edit seems POV to you, rewrite it and add to it, rather than simply revert. Rbj, you too. Bishonen | talk 18:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I am ready for any improvement of the article, of course. But not for "blind addition" of negative quotes (as YBM and RBJ already did). We do have a major difficulty here. Either we merely suppress these citations (and we are entering the terrible "revert game"), or we add "positive" citations to balance the global content of the article. But this solution (endless addition of citations) will end up in a long collection of phrases and "anti phrases" which will loose everyone. Instead of gaining in clarity, the article will on the contrary become quite long and confusing.

What is your feeling? Is there a way to contain the "flud of citations" wanted by rbj and ybm?

Igor

I'm not getting into that issue, take it to Talk and try to get everyone involved. My own feeling is that it may be necessary to allow a lot of quotes, from both sides, at this stage, and then gradually and consensually peel them back. But that's just my 2c. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Good morning,

I just added some more "positive" comments in reaction to all the "negative" material collected by rbj. As I said, I do not think that it is a good idea to put together all these comments. I have 2 remarks and one proposal.

Remark : Rbj is now obliged to collect private emails (ie the one between the journalist Fabien Besnard and Urs Schreiber) in order to feed his "negative" tank. How far can we go like this? I observe that, at this point, we have far more "positive" (and argumented) material (it all comes from scientific discussions or reports made by mathematicians or physicists about our work) than rbj. If we continue like this, his material will come from YBM and other "internet anti Bogdas" that are haunting various forums. I really do not think that this will improve the article, far from it. As it is today, this article is really less good and clear than yesterday. Does rbj really care about it? Does Ybm care about it? I do not think so. Their only aim is to hit their target, by all means. As soon as we try to have a scientific discussion (ie our last answer to Lubos Motl on the discussion page) they promptly invent another pseudo to pollute this discussion with the same old "rengaines".

Proposal : I propose to come back to the version we achieved yesterday (with only the 3 "positive" additions to the 3 "negative" rbj's). At this point, every Wiki reader would have understood the controversial content of the "affair. This wayn the article would still be clear and readable.

What is your opinion?

Best regards to you,

Igor

Sorry, Igor, I took a bit of a break from Bogdanov Affair yesterday. I'll try to take a look at the issues. Bishonen | talk 07:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Laurence67's vandalism (to say the least)

How is an editor supposed to react in front of such a conduct ? --YBM 22:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Trollish and inflammatory edit by Laurence67. :-( I've reverted it. Bishonen | talk 07:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

AOL Block Removal

Thanks, appreciate you watching out for me. WBardwin 01:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. All things considered, I saw your message pretty quickly, I guess. I only wish JRM wasn't on break. :-( I hope you've got a few other admins watching your talkpage, there's always safety in numbers. Bishonen | talk 02:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Wanna see weird -- and what happens when Wikipedia gets ahold of something?

Check out Bathos. Maybe I'm too close to the article, but what's there now just seems...wrong. I have unkind words to say on the talk page, but it's not even about that. It just seems...broken. Geogre 03:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

One of the anons went... weird. Homer Simpson often offers an homage to the Master of a Show in Smithfield??? And other things. Bishonen | talk 19:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what I mean. It opens now in the middle of things, tosses about pop culture willy nilly, and then screws up the definition. Arguably, the anon meant to be 19th century clever with that allusion to Dunciad, but it's just...weird. I don't want to do the rewrite, as it would look like reversion, and, as I said on the talk page, it's not that all the stuff is worthless. It's just kind of unusable and absolutely misplaced. (For a different example of why Wikipedia is doomed to misinform the world, see Weland. It's all a Wiglaf-like run through the dry slopes of Norse mythology, and then, without any warning at all, it's a comic book discussion placed on the same level of priority.) Geogre 20:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you may or may not feel like doing the rewrite on Bathos, but do you know of anyone else I could ask? Would anyone else get why the article is messed up? Do you think it wouldn't look like stomping on newbies if I did it? (I really don't want to, because I'd delete a lot of the new stuff.) Geogre 20:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Geogre, you got to. I've got the Bogdanov Affair affair, among other things, and I'd like to finish The Relapse some day, it's my favorite. Are you trying to kill me? Anyway, I don't have the skill. I don't understand the distinctions: is it all a matter of the intention? Bishonen | talk 01:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It is. "Bathos" is an insult for a bad author who "sinks" when he attempts the sublime. Pope coined the term to suggest something deeper than the profound. He used the term to make fun of Philips and Cibber, and he picked out their worst lines as examples. Particularly, it occurs when the author doesn't realize that his comparison is so jarring as to be stupid or so indecorous as to be illegal (the comparison of God with a chamber maid in "God swept the clouds from the sky"). When the very lofty is done in a very low setting, you get bathos, but it has to be something performed with sincerity. That's why the Children's Theater production of Oedipus Rex is a perfect example: the little tykes are trying their best, but a 12 year old mouthing Sophocles is too much for the mind to bear without laughing. What bathos isn't is the conscious technique of undercutting that all our favorite poets used excessively. Pope, in particular, even did it with his rhymes, so that one line's rhyme with the next would imply an undercutting comparison. When Kierkegaard said that "the loss of an arm, a leg, or a wife" would be more noticed that the loss of a soul, he was being clever. When my student said, "A person could be mugged, murdered, or even raped!" she was being bathetic, but the deflation in series is really a cheap example (which is one why all that stuff at the opening is doubly silly). The biggest thing is that it's a pejorative. You'd never use it for Rape of the Lock or Description of a City Shower or London or Trivia, and yet all of those use a lot of undercutting and conscious comparison of the high with the low. Geogre 01:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'll do the rewrite in a day or two. Right now, I'm watching a FAC debate. I don't have much pride of authorship with it, but I do want it to succeed all the same, because I can't foresee its getting promoted without a nomination or its getting much better organically in less than 5 years. Geogre 01:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Opus Dei talk page

Thank you for your comments. I was the one who wrote the paragraphs. Sorry I forgot to sign. Kindly check my new comments. Marax 07:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will. Sorry it's taking a while, I'm rather busy. Bishonen | talk 00:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Tickler file

"Tickler file" is a generic term to refer to any list one keeps of reminders of things that will need to be attended to in the future. There is no feature in Wikipedia called "tickler file". But, you could create a subpage off your user page to keep a list of such things for your own periodic review. --Durin 13:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ohh. :-( I was hoping for something that'd jump up and tickle me, without the review part. Guess I'll just have to become more organised. But thank you! Bishonen | talk 13:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Pack your bags for a world tour

Bishonen, I just completed a project I started on Saturday. I had help from fifteen translators. To see it, click on the first item in the row below. This menu will follow you from page to page. Follow the arrows from link to link. Have fun.

paul klenk ^talk 00:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

→ en · de · fr · ja · pl · it · sv · nl · pt · es · zh · nn · no · fi · ru · da

Wow, you're one international Wikipedian. Glad you liked the cheese (it wasn't from JRM, actually). Flaming, dancing Bishonen, 17:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC).

Oh, you're right, it was from you! I got confused. It is a lovely picture, and actually was a very nice welcome to the site. I intend to leave it there! It'd like getting a fruit basket at your hotel, except the cheese is of a higher quality. paul klenk ^talk

Legs like a chairman of the bored

I get Kappa trying to prove that voting "keep" without regard to an article's contents is good, and you get XAL and YBM. <sigh>

Thanks for the compliment on Arbuthnot. I think, looking back on it, that it's slightly too chrnological and could benefit from more shaping (which would free it more from the DNB without letting it fall into the POV-trap of 1911). Swift knew that Arbuthnot was fat (and got fatter; he looks fine in his portrait, but at the end of his life he was quite overweight) and consequently waddled, so mentioning the waddle was a way of politely not mentioning the obesity, I think. I love what you're doing with The Relapse. Just call, if you want any help there. My own (pathetic) Peterborough Chronicle is getting improved while on FAC by the voters, which is a rare and wonderful thing. I really did nominate it early, but I wanted to get a medieval lit. FA on the boards and knew that I wouldn't be able to get Ormulum up to snuff for a while (if ever; there just isn't much to say about it, while Peterborough has a ripping yarn in it).

Macheath found a Swedish toy that had been lost in my car since North Carolina today, and I have had to hear it all day. (The toy was stowed in the car during a move and never dug out from under the seat until the repo man came. It was rescued after the reclamation from the repossession.) Geogre 02:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Speleman article, first version

Just wanted to say thanks for the Norwegian and Danish terms. Did you know them, or searched for them? I finally ended up on speleman - one of the Norwegian versions of the word, that also is very common in Swedish. speleman music Maybe someone comes up with a more generally accepted English term, if there is one, later.

It will be interesting to see if someone with more detailed knowledge on the subject turns up. What I can contribute will, for natural reasons, be pretty Sweden-biassed although it is obvious that this subject is better handled from a Nordic, rather than a Swedish, Danish etc. perspective. Do you know if there is a space at enwiki where people who are interested in music (other than pop and rock) meet?

Actually, it is fun that there is a field where English Wikipedia doesn't already have all the articles. :-) I sometimes get the impression I can not do much here... / Habj 16:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure you can. What a nice well-balanced speleman article! I suggest you ask Mindspillage about the musical space. She writes a lot of music articles, I'm sure she knows. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Peterborough's Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

Forget for a minute the long-winded explanation on my talk page. Does the text of the article now explain why Winchester Cathedral is linked, or did I misunderstand the question? Geogre 21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

My problem is that your text doesn't mention Winchester Cathedral, and Winchester Cathedral doesn't mention any chronicle. Easter eggs don't count. In the paper version, they literally won't exist, and they're altogether deprecated; JRM is always unpacking them, and I've started to do the same. Secondly, "Winchester's" just sounds odd, to me, ugly and ungrammatical. Is that how people refer to that chronicle? It seems such an uneasy fit for "the Peterborough Chronicle". If you were to write an article about it, would it be entitled "Winchester's Chronicle"... ? Both these problems would go away if it could be referred to as "the Winchester Cathedral Chronicle", but I suppose it can't. Or better still, "the Winchester Chronicle", because there's little intrinsic point in linking to Winchester Cathedral. It's not much of an article. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hang on. You're not expecting me to be responsible for Winchester Cathedral being poor, are you? When JRM unpacks for a print version, that print version doesn't exist yet, and most of the time people pipe the references, it's to get grammatical agreement in the sentence, so unpacking makes little sense to me. The flaw is in the print version, not the smooth-reading online version, and I don't think we should be sacrificing readability to prevent some hypothetical problem. "This place's chronicle was a copy of that place's" is the sense of my sentence, and I think there would be overuse of "chronicle" to unpack the prep. object. As for the Winchester Cathedral article having no #History section that covers its importance as a medieval center of learning, that's something that can be fixed. The link is so that folks can know what I mean when I say "Winchester's": I don't mean the town of Winchester's or a guy named Winchester's, but the cathedral at Winchester's. The "easter egg" does count, since anyone clicking on that link would find Winchester Cathedral, which was built just after the Conquest, and which took over from an older abbey (and that's in the article). It would be great if there were a Winchester Chronicle article, but that's a bit too esoteric. The Winchester Chronicle is remarkable mainly as being the best one for the early accounts and being terribly commonly copied by other houses. Its Anglo-Saxon is standard and unremarkable, and it stops at the Conquest, so there isn't much to say about it. Further, it's not one of the ones with remarkable and unique material in it (e.g. Battle of Brunanburgh or the little sermons interposed or the accounts of marvels). It's a very respectable, restrained chronicle, which is what makes it kind of dull and not worth writing about except as a component of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Geogre 01:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, "the Winchester Chronicle" is usually called "The Parker Chronicle," because Matthew Parker owned it after the monastic break up. "The four chronicles recognized as distinct are called the Winchester Chronicle, the Abingdon Chronicle, the Worcester Chronicle, and the Peterborough Chronicle." Wikipedia has articles on only Peterborough and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Lacking a chance to refer to an article on Parker Chronicle (which would also need a pipe, because they wouldn't understand the geographical reference of Winchester Cathedral from the name used today for it), there are only two places I could refer: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or Winchester Cathedral. Geogre 01:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Consolations of Popery

I noticed that Aaron Breneman says that rhyming couplet insults will be treasured. Well, heck, that's easy for anyone who reads Dryden and Pope every week. :-) (No, no insults, but it was fun to attempt pentameter couplets...sometimes iambic and sometimes not.) Geogre 14:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

What a flipping morass that XAL junk is! I guess it's good that I'm not running for ArbCom, because at this point I'd figure we could just delete the whole damned article until the apes wandered away and then start afresh. Whatever people can say about the "affair," and I have no opinions on things physickal (except that, as Parmenides said, time and motion are both illusions), there is this dog and pony show going on in ring #2 where XAL proves an insane clown posse of one. One thing is clear: ArbCom is damned slow. This crap has been going on for far, far, far, far, far, far too long. (Aaron has proposed a new watchlist (see my talk page for a link to it), and he wondered "what happened here" with Tony Sidaway jumping out of the bushes to induce entropy into the talk page, so I wrote a poem to explain to him what happened. You ought to see the poem. I think it might bring a smile and offset some of the spontaneously generating crud you've been having to deal with lately.) Geogre 20:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

OMG, you've gone into bardic mode! :-) What happen, anyway? I thought you were going to run for ArbCom? Is it too late? You should! Bishonen | talk 23:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I still favor it in the abstract, although my recent, "Look, buster, I don't care if I live or die, so don't expect me to give a flip about your feelings" binge probably wouldn't argue well. It would be as well to have Fil on. It's not too late by any measure. The elections are in December, but I think Filiocht is motivated and got on the stick early. I don't know if he's visible enough generally to win. I think there will be a massive IRC lensing effect, which is one more reason why I think the IRC channel ought to be stopped. It's distorting votes on the project like nobody's business -- sometimes for people I like and sometimes against people I like -- but by any objective measure it distorts votes on RFA, and I have no doubt it will do the same on ArbCom.

I know it's bad form to laugh at one's own jokes, but I impressed my own damned self with that poem. I'm not sure that it's comprehensible without footnotes, and it has a triplet in it, and there is enjambment that's more Dryden than Pope, and, and, and.... Still, it cracks me up, and for ad libitum it's one of those things where I have to wonder how I did it. Geogre 00:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

My dear Bishonen: I wanted to thank you very much for your support of my RfA candidacy. I feel privileged to count you amongst my friends on Wikipedia, and I feel honoured that so many people whom I respect have volunteered their support and kind words. Your support, friendship, and assistance (especially with the Bogdanov Saga) is, as always, a true asset, and one that I am not sure I could do without on Wikipedia; for that alone I owe you immense gratitude. I do hope that I shall be a good skipper of HMS Adminship, and I promise to sail her as best I can through both calm seas and rolling, tempestuous storms. Once again, thank you, my dear. I shall speak to you on IRC. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 03:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

My sincere thanks

Thanks, Bishonen, for taking time to write comments (for a record third time) on the Opus Dei page. I've just modified the introduction of the article to incorporate your suggestions and proposed to the guys there a possible solution to the issue. I will also explore other ways to incorporate the "other POVs" more explicitly in other parts of the article. Again, my sincerest thanks, for you have been so kind. :-) Best wishes! Marax 07:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Marax, glad you look at it that way! Bishonen | talk 07:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, as Escriva said, "Love is deeds, and not sweet words," and your actions spoke more of kindness than anything else... I've done more correcting on the article, thanks to your prodding. Hasta luego! Marax 09:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you think

Its too long? There's another section on interiors to go yet! I don't want to chop any out, I've already done 10 sub pages! Giano | talk 09:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

OMG interiors? It's already at John Vanbrugh length. I don't know. I do see it's all of a piece, you can't possibly chop it in half or something. Lemme have a think. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

And another!

This one's cheesy, but I did write Redwolf's ode. Geogre 13:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

for the congrats. I was noticing that FA's were getting shorter and shorter and shorter, so I figured that PC, about which nothing much more could be said without getting into philology (which would be as fun for the general reader as going through the strengths of covalent bonds in a chemistry article is), would work. I appreciate the help and apologize for the prickliness. Geogre 19:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Literature

Hi, just discovered this. Are you interested in helping it along, as nothing much seems to be happening with it? Geogre? Anyone else watching? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, dear me. What a right royal mess you've gotten int. Hope it all gets resolved soon. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks a bit...ambitious...for me. I obsess about every little thing, so a huge thing like that would likely cause apoplexy. (How the hell can Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man be a stub?! That's an outrage, that is. I'm only lucky that it has been 20 years or more since I read it and therefore that it is beyond my power to do anything about its stubbiness. Otherwise, weeks of productive time would be swallowed up by it.) Geogre 13:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think I may play with it for a while, in the gaps between List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy, the Objectivist poets and my stuttering election campaign/attempt to change the world. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?

Because they should be... A Link to the Past brought you up as someone who supported trimming List of Wario games down. I'd appreciate it if you could voice your opinion at Talk:List of Wario games, since a fair few users (myself included) have some objections to trimming that list. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look at the talk page you mention and see if the discussion is on a level where I can usefully contribute; I'm a bit wary of it, since I don't know much about games. I was chatting with Link about defining something like "an x game" in a logical way, and agreeing with him from that point of view. There may be other considerations that I don't have much of a handle on, but, well, I'll take a look. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

He mentioned your name on that talk page, but then removed it, with an edit summary stating that he shouldn't have mentioned you without asking your permission. I dunno what his thinking is, but your input would be appreciated. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Your Colley Cibber, and I want my 5 pounds!

It appeareth that Colley Cibber will be widely seen on one of the 50 top web sites in the world on October 18, 2005. Congratulations to its author! Geogre 14:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, Charles Gildon now has an actual biography of the guy. I was thinking of making up stuff about how he fought a bear when he was 5 and save the life of the Great Mogul, but no one would get that joke but you and me. Besides, it would be wrong. It's as good a bio as I could make given the sources I could find. Geogre 17:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What the...? I replied to Geogre here an hour ago! :-( All right, trying again: OTOH *I* would get it spades, so I think you should put in the bit about fighting a bear! Bishonen | talk 20:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes yes yes.....I'm sure Colley Cibber is very important, but what is wrong with this site, each time I paste a section into Sic bar, all I get is two sections muddled together. Final Years has disappeared altogether, and interiors is not all there - what's going on. If you press edit you can see it properly - its all very off! Do any of your IRC people know how to solve this? 18:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Some of my IRC people are trying to figure it out, but the wiki is so slow and weird that they're having trouble. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, I've seen the exact same thing once before, with some article talk page. I think the solution turned out to be pretty simple... it's just that I can't remember it. :-( Anyways, best leave it alone and edit in a text editor for now. Don't worry, I'm sure it's that which is in the edit field that's really on the server. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What's a Sic bar? Sic transit gloria mundi? I've been to some really shady bars before, and some of them were kind of unhealthy, but I'm not sure any were sic. So, once more, with feeling: Bishonen, your Colley Cibber article is going to be on the main page next week. There. Oh, and Congratulations on that, and brace yourself for a thousand tiny helping hands on it. Geogre 01:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Please Geogre could you stop interjecting for a moment. I just want to than Bish for sorting out my problem - the usual envelope is in the post. We all know that Bish (yet again) is headed for the front page. No wonder, when one thinks of all those roubles and skandabrods (or whatever passes for currency in that bleak land of permafrost) that she has been donating to Raul's holiday fund. We could all write daily featured articles if we lived in 23 hours of darkness a day, and the only excitement was the occasional yak wandering into the igloo. For you information Sic Bar is an informative, concise, interesting and lively page with a whole fascinating section on Sicilian tombstones. Destined for the front page as soon as Raul (and that nice Jimbo) return from the vacation I have kindly given them at my summer residence "Palazzo Splendido" in the Cayman Islands, where I have been forced to retreat following the unjust persecution of my company "Palermo Publishing" by the Vatican and several other global feminist organizations. What's that about heresy down below. I'll go and have a look, always interested in the Inquisition, fascinating business methods, so useful in the modern world of commerce and pursuasion, I find. Now do stop worrying Geogre about unscrupulous people. Wikipedia is a haven of freedom from such people. Giano | talk 07:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You know, I think about it more and more. See, Wikipedia propagates through a zillion mirrors. It gets all over the world. So did Charles Gildon. Gildon spread his lies through 2-3 centuries of biographies and textbooks by lazy editors and authors and by the unfortunate. It would be justice to fictionalize a sentence or two in the bio. It would not be "WP:POINT," as some would accuse me of, but 18th:POINT or Lit:POINT. It would be a little poetic justice. How about giving him a love affair with a black African in Antwerp?

At any rate, if you like getting in the middle of wiki-controversies and abuse of admin powers and the like, then look at Talk:Manichaeism, where I may end up in a revert tiff with an anonymous coward (Mr. IP Freely) who is fairly obviously a true believer of some revival of this cult. He generally left my edits to the article alone, but he removed one sentence. Weirdly, it was a sentence that made his people look good, not bad, but I'm not sure that his reading skills are all that great. I reverted his removal of that sentence. If he removes it again, I'll revert that again. Anyway, just a heads up on that. (Also, on Talk:Manichaeism I issued one of those "go play in traffic" dismissals that can only make him angry. I'm sorry, but once it became clear that I was corresopnding not just with a heretic, but a person trying to be a heretic revivalist (how bizarre is that...ransacking history to find a heresy to support?), I figured that he wasn't at the article to write a history, but to express a view. There wasn't going to be any good coming of further dialog, so a dismissal was the kindest thing possible.) Geogre 02:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Giano, if you haven't encountered them before, there are people who are seeking, Madame Blavatsky-style, to revive extinct heresies, particularly dualist ones. The book Holy Blood, Holy Grail spurred on a group of neo-Albigensians. From that, a fellow or two got the bright idea to write more stuff about possible Holy scions and, of course, other dualisms. Thus, a new Manichaeism. Wikipedia is not the place for the malleus mallefactorum, so I'm not going to invoke any Holy Office, but they have a strong POV that they want to insert, just like UFO freaks, "brand new art movement" people, band members, and friends of the Bogdanovs. Thing is, neo-dualists are so rare, and Wikipedia membership is so not involved with the old theology, that few people even recognize it when they see it. Even then, I wouldn't much care, except that the article, complete with its "Manichaeans took all that is best in all religions and combined them" and "Manichaeans showed the truth to Christians," is up for FAC. I objected strongly, and only the nominator supported. The exoticism of the topic is enough to scare away voters, and my strenuous vote probably would scare away others, so it's not going to get promoted. Beyond that, I suppose I don't need to care. Geogre 10:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Geogre, you must think I have some odd tastes. It's not so much that I like wikicontroversies, but I do seem drawn to go look at complaints on WP:ANI from people who're not very wiki-savvy, and who sound like they're desperately trying to fend off somebody who's mobbing them. Depressingly common, that. You never know what you're gonna find, but it's a good recipe for getting in trouble, all right (last time I found Sophie, and thank you for your loyal defence and outrage there, sweetheart). Anyway, never mind, speaking of Colley Cibber, have you guys seen the new tabular version of List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"? It uses the {{prettytable}} template, and it's got very systematic and concise descriptions. :-) The previous verbose item info has been migrated to stubs. What do you think? Bishonen | talk 18:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Boyakasha!

I jusst wante to let you know I'm back home now and just hopping everything is going all right with you. If you have any qusetions just let me know honey.Wiki brah 03:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yet another RM-debacle

This time it's at talk:skånska#Requested move. I'm hoping people are actually going to understand my arguments, but it would be nice to have some support if violet/riga comes along demanding to get her paragrafrytteri-thang done.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe Isotalo has misunderstood the chief question at issue, which is that Skånska is undesirable as a name in the English wikipedia, and should be changed to a name including Scanian, whatever the rest of the name may be. I am tempted to suspect he has mistaken the present name of the article. I have argued at some length that he has misread Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages (at the bottom of Talk:Skånska) and invite you to read and tell me what I have gotten wrong. Septentrionalis 18:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Skånska#Requested moved I have altered single "first past the post" vote to approval voting so that we can try to reach a consensus. Please check that your vote still reflects your position as I may have misunderstood your voting intentions or you may wish to vote for more than one proposal. Philip Baird Shearer 22:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Take a Joke?

The redirect wasn't nonsensical as you claim. Yu-gi-Oh! is gay...I remember last summer, everyone was so OBSESSED with it...and the show lays a turd. So yeah, that was dumb. Sorry. But I didn't know that making something a redirect blanked it!

I accept your apology, Flamewiper12, and blanking is easily reverted, so that's fine. As for "nonsense", in vandalism warnings it's most often a wiki euphemism: we say "nonsense" when we mean something worse. Please note that you can sign your posts on talkpages by signing four tildes, ~~~~. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Different Jokes

There is some fun erupting on my talk page that requires literature, pop culture, and, optionally, Wikipersonae. Geogre 18:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

User:209.226.83.2

Hi, can you put a block on this user? They have continued to vandalise since your "This is your final warning" warning, see for example calcium chloride. I don't know the procedure for requesting a block, but this person is quite persistent. Thanks, Walkerma 18:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Walkerma. Blocked for persistent childish vandalism. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If you have a minute

I'd like to come here only for the fun things, but here I am again asking for a special favour.

There has been some anonymous uncautious editing to republic:

• The edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic&diff=next&oldid=25341195 - 08:05, 12 October 2005 (removing interwiki-links, references, disambig sentence on top of the article, etc..., etc...)
• The Ip performing this edit: 213.202.183.129 (talk · contribs)

There's this other user who first thought I had done the "damage", but I quickly made him see that wasn't the case, so we both agreed to go and look for an admin capable to revert to the earlier version, before the selective delete.

So if you feel like it (or could point me to the proper procedure for such questions), would it be possible to revert to the version by user:MONGO, 07:50, 12 October 2005 (that is this version) - MONGO had apparently reverted the first attempt at section deleting by 213.202.183.129, but not the next one. --Francis Schonken 21:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Good grief, what a mess. I'd use a stronger word than "incautious" for someone who blanks great swathes of an article and then reverts the person who cleans up after them. I suppose User:Reddi was attempting to undo the damage? Not by reverting the anon (unfortunately), but by adding in a lot of partial restorations. The problem is assessing the value of Reddi's last version, as against the one you ask me to revert to... hmmm... this is very difficult. There aren't any admin tools that are relevant, more's the pity. Somewhat at hazard, I'm going to assume that Reddi's edits merely duplicate some of the blanked work, revert to MONGO as you suggest, and then put in Stirling Newberry's new lead. OK? You know the article better than I do, please see what you think of the result, Francis. (Always nice to see you on my page, anyway!) Bishonen | talk 22:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Tx. Stirling is the one I had the talk with, and he had already said he wouldn't mind his last edit to the lead section not being restored (the MONGO version had some of Stirlings content in the lead section too)

But no problem, we'll have a look at it and take it from there. If the big work of restoring the references etc. is performed that the big help which is the very painstaking part without the sysop's magical stick)

Again, thanks --Francis Schonken 22:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you know, not to keep on about it, but I did I revert to MONGO exactly the way you'd do it yourself. No magic stick, just waved the usual dead chicken and spoke the incantation. (IOW, clicked on the old version, edited it by adding a space, and saved.) Didn't even sacrifice a goat. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

VfU

Re: [9] That's understandable. The more important matter, I suppose, is preventing the misuse of the "dubious templates." Their use would set a bad precedent for misusing the tools meant to flag unverified information in articles as tools in flame wars in the Wikipedia and Talk namespaces. Thanks for your consideration. 172 | Talk 12:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I just got your note on my talk page. In order to avoid the crossfire (and further charges of "immorality," "abuses of power," and "deleting evidence"), I no longer want to make any edits to the VfU discussion. But I trust you to delete or modify any of my comments as you see fit. Thanks again for the consideration. 172 | Talk 12:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Sure, I'll do that. I certainly don't blame you for avoiding the page. Bishonen | talk 12:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Votes_for_undeletion#Totalitarian_dictators

I appreciate your intent, and explanation on VfU, and I probably would not have objected to the <personal attack removed> if it had not seemed so conclusive and condemnatory (.e.g., presuming to be judge and jury). Something less conclusive such as <rm alleged personal attack> or <rm possible personal attack>, that would have suggested to the readers that they should make their own judgements, would probably have been fine. I am satisfied with the current state, because the readers are at least made aware that there is a record/history to be investigated.

As to the specific comment which seems to concern you the most, there is a history between 172 and me that justifies most of it (he was territorial about certain articles in which he largely painted post Stalin soviet leaders as reformers, and barely documented the continued oppressive nature of the regimes). The part where I extrapolate to his possible personal life, is of course, speculative. I admit that it is entirely possible that in his personal life he is a complete Milquetoast, and would never cross any questionable lines, and his behavior here is just a manifestation of the breakdown in of moral restraint that occurs under the cloak of anonimity. But by speculating in this way, I hoped to convict his conscience with what others might conclude from his behavior. He seems to be immune to this however.

As to the use of the "dubious" template, I don't see where it is a misuse of it at all, although I wish that it was a little less intrusive in the text by referring to the talk page, which of course required an explanation there. In retrospect, perhaps just editing the <personal attack removed> to the "alleged" or "possible" would have been less intrusive. Would you have objected to that?--Silverback 13:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback is arguing that my reopening of the deletion debate regarding the category "is just a manifestation of the breakdown in of moral restraint that occurs under the cloak of anonymity." This allegation has already been discredited. "The attempted closure Silverback points to was improper, especially in such a close case, because it was performed by one of the partisans for the 'keep' side." --[10] His other charge is that I am "territorial about certain articles in which [I] largely painted post Stalin soviet leaders as reformers, and barely documented the continued oppressive nature of the regimes." I believe he is referring to my removal of some of his material in History of Russia on grounds that it was unsourced original research. He is correct in pointing out that I am the main author of the article. But he did not point out that the article is an FA. It is an insult to the community that it would allow the featuring of an article as apologetic of the Soviet Union as Silverback implies. Certainly we have quite thin evidence to state as a matter of fact, as Silverback does above, that I am 'immune to conviction of conscious'. 172 | Talk 15:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What you fail to point out, is that User:Kbdank71 also closed every other Sep23 vote that was still open that day, you have no problem casting doubt on his integrity. He acted fairly, you just didn't like the results. Still, if you are going to undertake the doubtful and unusual step of reopening a closed vote, you should be willing to notify every voter, instead of starting a one party campaign. You probably should also post it on the various notice boards and forums. If the step was so reasonable, why couldn't you trust that some other user would do it? Don't you wonder why it is repeatedly you that is unable to resist the temptation to abuse?--Silverback 19:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Silverback, first, reread my comments. Those were Michael Snow's words, not mine. Nevertheless, by no means was he anywhere close to casting doubt on Kbdank71's integrety. Instead, he was calling one particular action of his a mistake. Second, regarding why I did not contact every voter after reopening the discussion, no one suggested it at the time. One of the first people I did contact (if not the first), though, was Kbdank71-- one of the keep voters. Third, I will not respond to your final comment, which is yet another personal attack. 172 | Talk 19:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice they were Snow's comments. Note also that he didn't state that the action was a mistake, but that it was a mistake for Kbdank71 to be the one to do it. I'd see his point if it wasn't an open vote where everyone could see they were counted correctly. Note, that Snow did not say that you acted correctly. Please stop accusing me of insulting the community, that is just a personal attack, and one that you would have to strain to prove, just as you had to strain to take personal offence at abstract comments on Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters--Silverback 23:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I know those articles, of course. I think I voted for them on WP:FAC, and I don't recognize Silverback's description of them. Silverback, I believe that you speak in good faith, your tone convinces me. But for my part I can't believe anybody's conscience was ever convicted by one-eyed and unfair attacks like those you level against 172 on WP:VFU and continue to level here on my page. In any case his conscience is not your business. You've made it clear that you dislike not only his editing, but his ideology, himself, and what you guess or believe about his private life. So what, really? You're an experienced editor, you know Wikipedia is no place for airing opinions about those things. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." If a fellow editor were to suffer, in your opinion, a "breakdown in moral restraint" (not that I've seen any sign of it), it's not something you have to fix.

Would I have objected to editing the <personal attack removed> to "alleged" or "possible" PA? Well, I was implementing WP:BOLD, which pretty much equates to being, for a moment, judge and jury: I definitely thought and think they were personal attacks, and therefore I wrote in a definite way. I wouldn't have any interest in qualifying them as "alleged PA" (*I* was doing the alleging, I was not neutrally implementing 172's request). "Be bold" is an important wiki principle, and I'd do the same again. That said, an equally important corollary is that I must expect to be disagreed with and edited in turn. The short answer, then: no, I won't change it; but no, I won't object if you change it to "alleged" or whatever, that's fine by me. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think their conscience is convicted right away, and certainly not if the attacks are unfair. But if upon reflection they realize that "attacks" could be substantiated much more than their friends might realize and that the community as a whole might not see their behavior as blameless. They might resolve not to give their "enemies" such "weapons" (difficult to defend behavior) to use against him again.

On the subject of 172, I suspect that 172s character will probably remain what it ever was, but perhaps his behavior will change if he realizes that it may be exposed to the light of day. There are not a lot of people who want to defend what he did that day, even among those who were in favor of the result.--Silverback 23:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"I suspect that 172's character will probably remain what it ever was". This is outrageous. Kindly do not post on my page again if it's impossible for you to do it without snide insinuations against 172 personally. Please follow this link to see where "Comment on content, not on the contributor" comes from, in case you think it's something I made up. Are 172's hypothetical flaws of "character" in some sense content, in your opinion? And incidentally, I don't know him, but I don't see anything in your specific accusations to warrant any attacks on his "character" whatsoever. I don't see why he should put up with continuous abuse from you, either. Just stop it. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RPA

My dear Bishonen, next time you enforce the PRA guideline, would you mind linking diffs in the <remove personal attack> field? I think it would really prove a timesaver, so one can evaluate their relative intensity (or lack thereof) without digging into the revision history. Love, El_C 17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What a good idea, you must be a PA expert. ;-) Sure will, though I don't enforce it much, this may have been the first time ever. As I say on WP:ANI, I normally prefer the more vengeful course of leaving the PAs on the page to embarrass the attacker. Not if there's a request by the victim, though. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. A RfC has been started on Silverback. You were quoted a few times in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback. Apologies in advance if this leads to more unwanted hassle on your part. Thank you for the help so far. 172 | Talk 17:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again, and thanks for the certification. I only now noticed that I asked some people about cosigning but not others. That was completely random on my part; for some reason I guess didn't remember to ask about cosigning each time. To answer your question, more than 2 cosigners is fine. Also, please feel free to keep a low profile on the page so as to avoid any further difficulties involving the situation. 172 | Talk 19:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

An old vandal returns! A roman a clef is born!

Well, if you've been following the literary game on my user talk page, you'll have spotted a nice roman a clef. (Well, I think it's witty, but what do I know?)

Also, Conquest of Granada got vandalized again in a minor way. What these people have against John Dryden is happily beyond me. I fear that if I understood why they do it, I'd be deranged, instead of merely crazy. Geogre 19:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

yet again

Wow, you lock the page without justification for your actions. Get a life, and a clue, and lose some weight while you're at it. 67.18.109.218 00:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Read my edit summaries, there's justification. Bishonen | talk 00:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I see no justification. I see talk and hyperbole, no factual links to wikipedia policies preventing me from clearing my own talk page. You're just jealous of me and my body. Keep your laws off of my body. 67.18.109.218 00:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep your body off my page if you don't want to get blocked. This page actually isn't your blog either. Bishonen | talk 01:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yet again, all I am asking for is a link to the policy that states that IP addresses can not change their talk page to their own design/liking. Are you able to provide this, or are just making up policy as you go along? 67.18.109.218 01:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link you may find helpful. Wikipedia:Civility is a good one, too. Incidentally you're not supposed to keep putting back that personal attack against Gamaliel on your userpage, either. Bishonen | talk 01:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheers, Bishonen. I don't see any reason to rush to unblock the page. Obviously some tempers need time to cool. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ten. Bishonen | talk 01:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sinhalese

Hey, this time I actually tried moving it myself. Could you move Sinhala to Sinhalese language? I've checked EB and they use "Sinhalese" for Sinhalese people and "Sinhalese language" for Sinhala. The latter seems to be the native name.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sho, hun. Done. Bishonen | talk 13:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You're a sweetheart. You should have quick look at Talk:Skånska, too. Philip's unilateral decision that we can't oppose has left your vote looking like you actually support "Skånska". We're very close to reaching a proper consensus on simply moving it back to Scanian (linguistics).

Peter ^Isotalo 15:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I've moved my vote, please remind me to never get mixed up in any more of your page move poll nightmares. Going grocery-shopping right now, back in an hour; if you now have a proper consensus and would like me to move the page, let me know. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI, nothing that requires action - there was a rough sort of consensus about what Sinhalese really is, so we re-reverted it. Related discussion is, as always, there. Thanks. Greenleaf 10:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The peculiarity of RfC's

So, basically, I agree with the essential assertions of fact on an RfC, but I'm not certifying the request. Further, I have a firm belief that RfC's should not specify sanctions -- that's an ArbCom task -- but should only specify the next step ("refer to arbitration" or "refer to mediation" or "refer to Dr. Demento"). So, where do I sign, if there is no place to sign that says, "Agree with the assertion of fact but not with the various answers?" Geogre 12:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. You mean, RedWolf's "outside view" at the bottom of the page specifies sanctions, and the other one recommends mediation, so you don't want to sign—"endorse"— either of those? I don't see anything about sanctions in the sections above. Now you mention it, I wonder if the template has been changed, things seem to come in an odd order, compared to when I read an RfC last. I mean, if you do agree with the assertions of fact, the obvious place for you to sign, before, would have been "Other users who endorse this summary". But now, one asks oneself, what "summary", exactly? Would I be endorsing the whole pile of stuff above my sig? Can I really do that? So I guess the short answer is "I dunno". :-( Bishonen | talk 12:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I feel myelf to be in the same bind. I support your actions here, Bish, but don't really feel I can support the RfC summary or outside views as they stand. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, guys, that was all I wanted. And thank you for the other thing, too, Fil. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the facts. Dunno what to do about it. Yeah, I guess "Those endorsing the above summary" would be the spot I'm looking for. I'll look again. Meanwhile, I have to figure out something to write about. I guess Edmund Curll, as his article is rotten, and there could even be a way of being fair to him (maybe). That and researching up Ormulum, but I don't know where I can find the time and well-being for it. Geogre 14:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Curll might contribute to well-being, Ogre-Pogre. The Relapse is doing wonders for me. Oh, wait, that reminds me, I need to write something on that talkpage right now. Lest it contribute to apoplexy. Dear me, excuse me one minute [runs off at great clip]. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Culture of Italy

Sorry no interest to me, I'm not from those parts. You need to find some Italian guy to take a parental interest. Seems like a bit of a rubbish page though considereing it is the "cradle of civilization". Doesn't Geogre have any latin blood? Giano | talk 17:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hah. And yet, no doubt, you are watching Automobiles of Italy. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I shall reply to you later!!! One of my charming offspring (from that same cradle) has just emailed me lots of fotos (1/2 hour to download) of them enjoying studies, so I must attent to them first. I shall c Giano | talk 17:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

MAIL!

Sorry, wasn't watching the mail nor this page. Is all good, relax. Bishonen | talk 23:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Your Colley Cibber and I still want my 5 pounds

Here it comes, man. I haven't gotten a helper yet, but I will, and so will you. That'll stop your relapse into editing (instead of watching people bicker). Speaking of which, I'm about done with Ormulum now. It's amazing what a few hours in the liberry can do. It's even more amusing that there is another editor of Ormulum -- perhaps the dullest book ever written (see talk:Ormulum). A few rearrangements of the lead, and I'll FAC it. I've done my time with long, well illustrated articles. I'm due a couple of short ones on boring subjects. (Peterborough isn't boring in what it talks about, but I made it seem a lot more coherent and comprehensible in my article than it is. Such is a duty of an encyclopedist, though.) I'm shocked to death to find that I found four or five sources for Ormulum. Really, it is dull. I mean dull. I mean autolobotomy dull. Geogre 01:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Frustration

Thanks for your seeing and responding to the junk. Yup when I do the random article trick, at least there are 8 out of 6 (!) US geography articles for every hamlet that ever had a name (ok I'm australian) and at least one 'sneak' self promoting art. I really appreciate your advice, I can now see some zap power for these guys who write a page about themselves just to see how long it stays there(?) and the bleeding obvious repeated vandal inserts. Ta vcxlor 05:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Front page

Congratulations - how nice to see an interesting and well written article gracing the front page. Your many talents never fail to amaze me. Thank you Bishonen for all you do for Wikipedia both seen and unseen. You're a star. Giano | talk 06:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. Stellar indeed. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Giano, I trust you didn't have a heart attack. Thanks guys, thanks, Geogre. I should be leaving Colley Cibber alone today, and not argue with people, but I just went in and ... did. I thought if it says all day in the Lead that his brash personality gained him the laureateship, it makes it hard for other people to do useful copyediting thereabouts, and I really would like to get the advantage of all the fresh eyes. Plenty of good edits are being added, and plenty of people seem to be watching for vandalism. But never mind about that old article, who cares, what do you think of my promotional message on this page? Courtesy of Alkivar. I can't stop admiring it. I hope the text BLINKS in your browsers, the way it does in mine? Bishonen | talk 11:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Why, I'm dazzled and a-mazed, of course. It's such that one thinks about perhaps using <blink> blink </blink> on the FA template itself. I think we should get some slide whistles in sound files and have those as part of the link to "Featured Article," too (rising tone, of course, with the falling tone being used for FARC).

Have you had other people doing up FA's in other languages of articles you've done in .en yet? Good old Jonathan Wild is now FA in three languages, I think, and someone just FA'd Oroonoko in French. Makes me wish I'd paid attention in school and actually learned to read a language other than Good Ol' Boy.

Needles to say, I'm going to take a look in on Cooley Cibber today. Geogre 13:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Bells and whistles, that's the idea. I've looked at Jonathan Wild in German, didn't I tell you? Most convincing-looking. I had quite a conversation with the translator, admired her version of John Vanbrugh, and poked about on their FAC page, back in January. I didn't quite vote for John Vanbrugh, even I have some shame, but I commented and interfered. In English, of course. My German vocabulary is about 50 words. The elegant German on the Benutzer:Bishonen page isn't mine, it's a translation kindly provided by dab. :-) Ubiquitously yours, Bishonen | talk 17:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello...yes, nice article, maybe too long! Brief point on archiving--I don't think it's necessary to archive simply everything on a talk page, especially with quick and very simple notes that could have just as easily been conducted on a user talk page. We could archive every version of the article itself, but the version control handles that for us—similarly, I think only a discussion which someone might reasonably refer to should be preserved. Archives should ideally—if people are willing to take the time—only include those things which will ever be considered relevant in the future, refactored in a way that helps people get the thrust. Though what's important to keep in a talk page is subjective, so is what's important to keep in an article, and I think a unified methodology between the two is desirable. A little quote from my user page: once a discussion on a topic gets straightened out, you can refactor it so that newcoming readers avoid the confusing dead-ends that people took on their way to achieving consensus. I know not everyone shares the methodology, but I just think this particular one was a cut and dry case, best left to the version history, that's what it's for. More rants on Wiki Theory on my user page...best... Metaeducation 19:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's agree to differ about the axing of (mainly) my post on Talk, Meta. I don't think the fat lady sang yet, far from it, as this is the great Day of Editing for Colley. His Lead section may well get more copyedits, and the Talk discussion more additions, provided it's still there. I hope you saw the blinkenlighten on your way here? :-) I'm not sure they work in IE. On an unrelated note, have you thought of joining in some of the discussions at WP:FAC, if you've got the time? Regards, Bishonen | talk 20:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC).

Regarding FAC...read it a bit but I think I'm happy to accept what comes down the pipe...even, uh, Wario. In other words, I take for granted that any topic is interesting, so most of the FAC critique process involving the selection isn't an issue to me. (Although I secretly hope to live to see Time Cube make the cut). But if there was a page that gives an advance warning of publication, so I could tinker before the selected page goes live—but after it's been decided that it absolutely will—I'd prefer that so any mistakes I make get caught sooner. I'm not seeking to modify or correct content since I'm generally out of my field on these, I just want to make the things flow. But the candidate tag is used too often for me to be able to justify the time. Metaeducation 20:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It's funny you should ask, I was just thinking about sending you this link, so you can do your copyedit in advance and see it on the Main Page. I suggest you tinker well ahead of the publication date, as I'm not sure how early Raul654, the Featured Article Director, finalizes the main page. In fact, if you have large-scale tinkering plans, for instance shortening a Lead section fairly drastically (as you did with CC), it would probably be a good idea to drop a line on Raul first in any case. Note that the texts on that page are already slightly edited, perhaps shortened, in relation to the live Lead sections as seen in the articles. Also, of course, there's a list of all Featured Articles (as opposed to mere FA candidates). That's here. The bolded titles on the page have already been featured on the MP, so the unbolded ones are your men. In principle, they will (nearly) all go on the MP eventually, though nobody knows when. The advantage of using that list, even if it's dauntingly long, is that you'd be editing the articles directly, and the main contributors will be watching them, so you'll get input. That's not so likely to happen with the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2005 page. Best, Bishonen | talk 21:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC

SlimVirgin offered to delete it. I don't want it deleted. It is evidence of bad faith behavior by its initiator. The ArbCom has now accepted my RfAr against its non-existent author. Thank you for your support. Maybe it should be archived, but not deleted. If you have studied computer science, I will explain how deleting anything may raise issues of referential integrity. If not, then please try to understand that I might have a point. If disk space is cheap, nothing should ever be deleted, but some things should be hidden or masked. Robert McClenon 01:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, well, that was rhetoric, my reference to deleting or archiving it: an expression of surprise and distaste at the nasty thing. Bishonen | talk 01:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sic Bar

thanks for the edits, that does seem a better layout. What do you think, can you understand it, does it make sense - is it finished? can't log in for some reason Giano

Reply by e-mail. Bishonen | talk 14:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

emailed back. I'm about through with it, and want it finished and wrapped up. Thanks Giano | talk 16:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Off to bed - it's all yours!

Thanks for the copyedit, that looks a lot better, I'll just tweak a little when you've finished, let me know when you want to go in again. Have a nice day Giano | talk 07:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

One would reply even sooner if it didn't take 25 minutes to get to the bottom of this page. I don't know. I think it's supposed to be Baroque with a capital B, we had all of thi with Palladian and palladian, I've no idea we don't capitalize like some people, I always think upper case is a little pompous myself - who do we know who would know? Geogre? - ALoan? Giano | talk 18:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Then why ask? Giving birth is very stressful for me, no one knows the pains I suffer at these moments Giano | talk 18:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Baroque would have many baroque artworks (noun vs. adjective) would be my guess. I don't Capitalize with perfect Regularity, because I read 18th century Literature. Geogre 18:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well it's 18th century architecture! I personally don't see why it needs a capital at all, it's only a noun, we are not German (at least I'm not), it's not a place, person or named after a person like say Palladian was after Palladio (who was a person) or Romanesque is after Rome (which is a place) - are you getting my drift, in fact it's names after "barroco" a foreign word (Ithink Portugese) meaning a deformed pearl - sod is! some-one will know different what ever we think. Where's ALoan he'll know tha answer Giano | talk 20:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC}

replied! Giano | talk 20:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The dictionary to hand (Little OED) lists "baroque" with minuscule initial "b" as:

1 a. ornate and exuberant in style, esp. of 17th–18th-c. European architecture and music. 2 n. baroque style.

(Note the delightful hyphenation in "17th–18th-c.".) However, as our article on Baroque states, I think it makes sense to distinguish things that are simply ornate but not related to the Baroque period ("baroque") from things that are in related to the Baroque period ("Baroque", using Baroque as a proper noun, like the Stone Age, or Arts and Crafts).

On the other hand, my dictionary doesn't mention Palladian or palladian at all, and only lists Byzantine with majuscule initial "B" as:

a. of Byzantium or E. Roman Empire; of architectural etc. style developed in Eastern Empire; complicated, underhand.

But I can't see why you couldn't say that something that was complicated, without any sensible connection with the Eastern Empire, was "byzantine" with minuscule "b". -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is all far too confusing, you sound as unsure as the rst of us ALoan, thanks anyway - So as it's (still just) my page I say Sicilian baroque - er.....eccept the irritating and trecherous Prof. Blunt says Sicilian Baroque, and Baroque allthrough his book 0h drat the man - perhaps he's wrong too. Giano | talk 13:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Hello my name is Giacomo and I am dyslexic" as none of you will be surprised to learn! I have just had a thorough look at the reference books, without exception the English ones all have a capital B in all instances when referring to architecture. So I'll change it - OK everyone . Giano | talk 14:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the nomination and kind words - a disappointing start - I suspect he may not be Sicilian!. In case of the unlikely event anyone else is reading this - "

Hello Campers! we Sicilians love all tourist, its a wonderful place, the sun shines all day, we haven't had an earthquake for yonks, and Etna is so well behaved she's just a pussy cat. We are all warm and friendly. You don't have to be rich we love the poor tourists too - just come, a warm welcome in the sun is assured" PS I've just sent a short email dearest Bishonen. Giano | talk 19:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

NPA

Why I don't sign off:

• Mainly, I don't agree with an NPA policy. I agree with it as a guideline and as a cause of refactoring talk pages (if links to archives are provided only).
• Any time we get into "personal attack," we have to interpret, and that's the pisser. Is it the victim's assessment, the speaker's intent, or the mob's evaluation? Each of those has big problems. Uninvolved people can generally agree when something is a PA, but the moment "the community" answers, then it gets down to who has friends and who has helped whom in the past.
• Disrupting Wikipedia really ought to be enough, and personal attacks do that. As a subspecies of "disruption," a person can and should go over to arbitration or mediation for being an insulting jerk. Yodler, for example, was making negative content. Sophie, too, is making negative content.
• The problem with trolls is that they generate a lot of discussion, but all the discussion is about something other than the purpose of the website. If they can get a fight over brain death going, they have accomplished their jobs. Those users who generate insults (and those who cry wolf repeatedly, claiming that they're being attacked) are diverting the energies of the project onto an endless (because endlessly argued) debate over how insulting they are or how wounded. That, to me, is a reason to mediate, arbitrate, or annihilate, not the nastiness or sweetness of some words here or there. (If someone says something awful, but it doesn't get a tizzy going, I wouldn't want to see the effort of an RfC. It's only disruption that should be penalized.

Anyway, that's why I'm not getting into the insult RfC's. Geogre 21:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"Disruption" is quite a vague concept to me. Anyway, nobody need get into those RfCs any more, the subjects are highlighting their worst editing habits on them more effectively than even your eloquence could. Bishonen | talk 02:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "disruption" is vague, but I think it's far more empirical than "personal attack." They both require interpretation, but the latter is a question of affect, and the former is one of effect. We can pretty easily figure out if some monkey's antics have caused that monkey to stop doing anything useful and/or caused others to do less useful stuff. That's why I brought up Yodler and Sophie. They were both time sinks for everyone else, and neither of them wrote anything of serious worth. Most of the former's edits were removing things he didn't like, and all of the latter's edits were Mobius strip comments. On the other hand, Tuba saying that Giano had attacked him (when Giano had very much baited him but not attacked him) led to a lot of smoke and hostility, but nothing was decided. He has a lot of friends, and so the comments and "votes" on wp:an/i and elsewhere were all about emotions and not about statements, intent, etc. I think that any editor whose work leads to folks talking about the edits instead of the subject of them is, to some small degree, disrupting, and this includes those who protest as well as those who provoke. This is why I've always had some sympathy with the "act definitively" sentiment and with the idea of a greater hierarchy of power. It's only some sympathy, though, and not agreement. Geogre 14:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Sicilian Baroque

I'm not sure what I was thinking with that first change you mentioned. I meant to write something else, but my fingers typed that instead. As for the split infinitives, I understand and will try to avoid needless infinitive unsplitting. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 02:59

File the following under "fools rush in where angels fear to tread": I'm starting to do a little grammar scan and sweep of the article, too. I'm going to vote to support, but there are some rough edges that need smoothing. I may not be the man for the job, but I might as well give it a shot. Geogre 03:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Miscellany

Any particular time? 3:00/9:00 is good, but I'm flexible, as I'm going to be grading today. That's my whole task, and watching Ormulum go. (Your comment was the best: Orm sent it to cleanup, and, of course, it didn't get off the list; at least Walter didn't just underline all the nouns.) Geogre 12:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Er, did you mean my 3:00—just about now—or my 9:00 PM? I'll go with the latter of that's OK (that's 3:00 PM to you), because I want to go out in the 2-minute daylight window round about now. Sometimes I think it's gonna make all my hair fall out or something if I never see the sun. But a couple of hours earlier will work just as well, please post if that's better. Oh how I hate grading. And I just found an essay from a web essay mill, too. :-( Bishonen | talk 13:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant 3:00 my time, 9:00 your time. Grading is the bane of the profession. I'm going to start any minute now. (Actually, at noon.) 2-3 hours is all I can manage at a time, so your call will punctuate it perfectly. Geogre 15:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope I'm helping

With regard to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2, if you have a clear unambiguous answer to FW's question "does this "all out of good faith" post from SlimVirgin, followed by her sudden involvement in the Bensaccount RfC constitute turning wikipedia into a battlefield?" then providing that answer might be a good idea. On the other hand if you have no such clear unambiguous answer, maybe you should ignore this paragraph altogether. Just trying to help. WAS 4.250 11:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already replied to FW, basically saying that I won't answer "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" questions, and asking a more straightforward and urgent question of him, about his own behavior wrt the "endorsement" of my outside view. After all, it is an RfC on his conduct, and that aspect seems to get a little overwhelmed sometimes. I'm not saying FW is overwhelming it on purpose--he has every right to defend himself--but I wanted to bring it back up on the table. I do believe FW would do himself a favour if he focused more on his own conduct and less on SlimVirgin's, and if he made good faith attempts to respond to comments on it from the community. Responses by ad hominem insinuation only make him look bad. Bishonen | talk 11:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. While your reply to FW indicated you are not replying to a hypothetical (and the question I quoted is NOT a hypothetical), it appears the actual and quite sensible real reason is that you do not wish to be drawn into the side issue of "Was someone else just as bad" with him in this context. FW would serve himself better if he promised to act more friendly and stopped defending himself with "I'm only doing to them what they are doing to me" type arguments. WAS 4.250 14:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Who the hell!

Who is this person User talk:Justinc he's threatening to block me! wants to delete one of the images from JV. It seems to me that all sorts are becoming administrators now. Its sad really isn't it. Giano 20:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It's Ok he seems quite nice actually - can't think why you chose to think otherwise! Giano | talk 21:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Mail!

Creative, but............

The Swiss Knight -- here's an interesting little effort that might appeal to you a little, given what happens on your talk page. I'm sure it needs to be deleted, so have fun with your magic admin keys. Miss seeing your name on my talk page, but don't miss being blocked so often. Best wishes. WBardwin 06:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It spawned! Please see: The Warden of Glasswall. Creativity runs rampant. Thanks for your note. WBardwin 18:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Portia needs a poo

Back in half an hour. sent a mail!

Yeah, and check your mail... (hopelessly). Good old Porsche! Bishonen | talk 21:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Tiny request

Hi again Bishonen. I suggest moveing Heraldry of Oelandia to Heraldry of Öland (coulnd't do this myself, it says). // Mucios thanks, Fred-Chess 00:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Right, the redirect was edited, so you couldn't. Always happy to help root out those Latinate names. Bishonen | talk 00:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

en simple

Heavens to Betsy, if it weren't so soon after your comment, I'd have gone to "Oppose" on a recent RfA. I wouldn't have based on FAC actions, but on the arrogance and narrowness of the responses on the RFA itself. Wow. First, many of these things aren't "grammatical" problems at all. Second, many aren't even bad. They may be complex, but complexity is not an error. However, differences of opinion are fine: it's the way one acts about those differences that signals trouble. I see overwriting and death defying over them, and that's a bad, bad thing. Geogre 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

And a (mail) turnaround in less than 9 minutes! Geogre 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

À votre in-box rapidement ma peu de chou d'amour. Avec beaucoup de baisers votre admirateur secret

NOOOOON! Mail! Bishonen | talk 22:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I will attempt to be balanced and measured and not too late. I have strong enough reasons to vote, but I don't need to peel the paint. Geogre 12:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Bounty Board

Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Mandan and The Relapse images

Just a note to thank you for your marvelous help on my Mandan article. I have just left a note on Mark Digemanse's page to ask about the language. I'll add that before nominating it on FAC. You help has been wonderful! In addition, I found some images you may want to use for your Relapse article. A lengthy comment with a link to the pics is on my talk page. Take care! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 18:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sicilian Baroque

Bishonen, this article seems to be fueling a number of controversies. Those controversies quite aside, can I interest you in a continuing effort to improve the article? However badly it needs improvement, I'm certain that it could be improved. I'm cautiously working on this, but another brain would be a great help. Thanks. (Probably no need to reply; but if you do reply, please do so here. I hate watching pingpong dialogues.) -- Hoary 04:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hoary, thanks for writing, but I just find it difficult to put all the bad feeling, and the way everything about the article is up in the air, quite aside right now. I admire your persistence and equanimity in working on it, and of course I am interested in helping, very much. But with the ongoing unpleasantness, persistently associated with this lovely article :-( — look, almost at random, at the latest attack on myself here—and the FARC business—well, I'd rather wait a little. I'd like to work with you, but what do you say we both wait a little? I just don't feel good about it right now. (Hey, if you don't have enough to do—just kidding—might I interest you in taking a look at an effort I'm just finishing myself, The Relapse? All feedback, but especially comment about proportion, and possible boringness, of the bits and the whole, would be much appreciated.) Best, Bishonen | talk 04:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

That last link of yours certainly provides an odd comment. To me, it doesn't look like an attack; but if I were to comment any more on it, I'd do so in the RfA page. By contrast, I try hard to put aside the continuing unpleasantness; but when I'm forced to consider it I take it as good reason to have the page fixed fairly quickly by the patient and sympathetic before it's fixed by the less patient and less sympathetic. So I'll persevere with it (and I'll try to take a look at The Relapse as well). -- Hoary 04:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a wiki. I don't like the feeling that the less patient etc are quite likely to undo the work of the patient at this time; I don't have a scenario for that, just a feeling. "Vulture" isn't an attack in your book? Your mileage may indeed vary. Bishonen | talk 05:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

To me, it's a silly comparison within a rather silly message, by somebody who clearly is agitated. It's regrettable, but I wouldn't have regarded it as an attack, no. Anyway, it's in a separate compartment of my brain from that dealing with the Sicilian baroque. I have the same premonition as you, and this is why I'd like to stormproof the article. Stormproofing aside, I'd like to see it improved, but unfortunately I lack the architectural knowhow needed to make any but the lowest-level alterations. -- Hoary 05:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want to see an attack, look at the AOL anon vandalism of my page that Everyking reverted. It's an IP that has, like all AOL IP's, done vandalism and good edits, so it's likely a regular user logged out in this case. Nevermind that, though. I didn't think Tony1's complaint was an attack as much as a hyperbolic simile. The article itself would benefit from copyediting, and I hope it would be possible to do some actual rewriting without aggravating the primary author. The way I saw it, most of the negative voting came from the prose, not the information. Geogre 11:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through The Relapse -- at one, rather superficial level anyway. Sorry, but this is yet another among the squillions of areas of human knowledge in which my own knowledge is infinitesimal, so this level is about the only one at which I can operate. I hope one or two of the tweaks are of some help. -- Hoary 15:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that's very useful with a pair of fresh eyes. Bishonen | talk 15:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

William Shakespeare

Have you seen the new revamped William Shakespeare article? Do you like it? Or do you find it, like me, far too short? Mandel 16:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Appreciate your quick and ready reply. Like you, I'm a bit put off by rudeness...Wikipedia these days seemed very badly affected by incivility, plus a whole lot of other problems...I get rude replies all the time, especially in my talk page, especially when I take very strong stance against anything if I feel it is good for Wikipedia. My feelings about William Shakespeare are exactly how you feel...however, Alamaboy feels very strongly about what he's doing, I don't think either of them will listen. I will look through your article later. Not worried as your articles are generally well thought out and well written. Mandel 19:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I did a quick run-through on The Relapse. I did find the cast section a little too long, but nothing else that will prevent a FAC nomination. I will read in detail some other day when I have more time at hand. :> Mandel 20:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Did a quick checkthrough of User:Iago Dali's edits and am flabbergasted...I think we better pray that your The Relapse article don't go through his mangling scissors...check out Charles Dickens, Edmund Spenser, John Donne, Hermann Melville, Charles Dickens and look carefully at the pre-Iago and post-Iago state, especially at the lead. I really think he's Shakespeare's Iago personified now :-(.

Great balls of fire. I've alerted the cavalry. I can no more, it's 3 AM here. Bishonen | talk 02:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm looking at John Donne. My message on the user's talk page was somewhat peremptory, but I find it impossible to imagine that the user is acting without an awareness of the amount of information being excised. Further, the "imposter" business can't help but be prejudicial. I can think of lots of old names to invoke that this is like, but none of that is to the point. All we really need to be concerned with is keeping the seals tight and watching carefully to see if this is the only thing the user does, and then proceed from there. Geogre 14:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Geogre, so glad to see you! It seems horribly large-scale, doesn't it? I found yet another recent message to the user, of the same tenor, about Wallace Stevens, that had been placed in error on the User page. I moved it to User Talk and left a note to the sender (who does not visit wiki often) about the pattern. Bishonen | talk 15:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, remember that Iago's motivation was envy, and Dali thought that chaos betrayed the subconscious. There was a legendary troll on Wikipedia who did things like this -- apparently "harmless" removals of massive amounts of information. It was one of the early hard bannings. No jumping to conclusions, but this conclusion is hard to avoid stepping on. Geogre 01:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Happy to see reactions toward Iago's edits. As for you asking why I blotted off the Shakespeare talk page, I just changed my mind. I thought it better to keep mum. Mandel 03:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm, does the defense of plagiarism make anyone else worry? (I.e. could it be that these edits were to bring our articles into conformity with a print source?) Just a thought. As we all know, finding out if we are in copyvio of a print reference is far more work than detecting copyvio of electronic sources. Geogre 10:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You can read Iago's very wordy and meandering defense on Talk:William Shakespeare. Basically, he railed against the level of copyediting in Wikipedia, taunted us to make it better and noted that he received specific praise (and a barnstar) from certain editors like User:Alabamaboy for his work. Both Iago and Alabamaboy are in unison that a literary article should be useful to a 12-year-old doing research. I disagree vehemently (that should be kept for the Simple English version). User:The Singing Badger is keeping very quiet, but she (I believed it's a she) seemed to have been won over by the two. Please feel free to comment on the state of William Shakespeare on the peer review. I personally think Alabamaboy's rewrites lacks both depth and enthusiasm somewhat, and his style is too clinical and dry, but that's my POV. It's not bad, but it's not that great (as he advertises it) either. I basically cannot feel the article is safe in the hands of someone who names four plays as "classic" in the lead (since then removed very perspicicously by The Singing Badger). Mandel 14:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If y'all haven't seen it, you really should see user talk:Iago Dali just now. He has announced that Wikipedia is "bullshit" and that it planted viruses on his computer and that the inability to log in (which I suffered the last 2 days, too) is part of a plot. He has said that he is leaving it forever. The whole message is rather hysterical, if not paranoid, but bizarre is kind of predictable, based on the editing pattern. Geogre 15:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

And he deleted all the complaints from the talk page. I've restored them. I'm prepared to protect the page if that's what it takes: it's important that people who come there for similar purposes as we did are able to see that this content removal is an ongoing and urgent concern. Bishonen | talk 19:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Your choice, of course, but I'm not of the same opinion when it comes to talk pages. Were there an RFC on him, there would be a reason for overriding his edits of his own talk page. Otherwise.... Again, your choice and not something I feel strongly about. I think there is something highly, highly suspicious about the user, but history is enough for me to know that a number of folks have complained and that he has interesting taste in friends (and no, I'm not talking about Tony the Marine). Geogre 20:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Help with flag

Hi Bishonen. On wikimedia commons there is a "Flag of Sweden.svg". However, someone had, one day before the uploading of that flag, been uploading Image:Flag of Sweden.svg locally. So it blocks the commons flag!

If you click the image description page, you see that the colors of the local flag is wrong compared to the link given there. Can the local flag be speedied, or what should we do...?

Regards , Fred-Chess 12:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Fred, I asked on IRC to make sure, and was told it was a speedy criterion. Phroziac has deleted it. Bishonen | talk 14:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. (I usually don't bother people with non-constructive messages like this.) // Fred-Chess 16:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Once upon a time...

As a literary person, why don't you join in on this group novel project? I tried to spark some interest a while back, and wrote the beginning of a chapter on the murder mystery section. Each "chapter" was placed in user space but was available to the group (what there was of it). Pick a character and write a little? Edit my stuff -- it needs it! Critique the whole idea?? Let your creativity loose. WBardwin 03:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the move.

I'm just getting my feet wet on Wikipedia, so I'm not always familiar with the ways of doing things here. I appreciate that you moved my post for Iago Dali. Homanid.

WikiLove

Oh, Bishonen - (I can get vocative here too) - no, I can't point to any particular point where you have lacked civility, but then I don't think I ever said that you did. What I said was it seems to me that more civility, deep breaths and walking away from the confrontation on both sides would have helped in the past and would help going forward (emphasis added). More civility always helps, as does taking deep breaths (short of hyperventilation), and walking away from the confrontation, particularly in an impersonal written medium like this, where it is all to easy to take offence at bald words on the page, absent the non-verbal clues that would normally blunt or clarify their import. As I have said to Giano, far too much of everyone's time at this place is taken up with destructive in-fighting, and I have no intention of getting involved in that. But I don't feel I can stand idly by while a contributor walks away from the project over something as meaningless as whether a FAC has been copyedited enough, or whether people have said nasty things (justified or not) in his RFA. Which it not to say that I wholeheartedly support Tony in all that he has said or done. I am not picking sides here. I just wish we could all get along and just write this darned encyclopedia. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I prefer to respond on my own page in this instance, I hope that's all right. I note what you say, including your response to Giano, thank you for taking the time. I have to say I don't get the impression that you've followed what happened closely, and I totally understand that you'd rather spend your limited wikitime on something more life-affirming than reading the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tony1 page, or following Tony1 on user talk pages. OTOH, if I'm right in thinking you haven't, aren't you taking a lot on yourself with this fingerpointing? To encourage Tony to stay is a most humane impulse, I commend you for it, so please don't bring up that strawman again, as you do to Giano. It's not your encouragement that bothers me; it's that you choose not to answer my question about where I could have been more civil, or less confrontational, or walked away sooner (before asking my single question on the RFA? before posting my single vote?). And even more that you express disbelief in Giano's description of events. After all, you've been friends for some time, I assumed there wasn't basic distrust. He certainly trusted you, in taking the trouble to send you an account. It's a very moderate one, and, as I said, I have trouble believing that you've researched the subject in depth for yourself. You can't stand idly by while a contributor walks away from the project ? You're doing it now. P.S., it would be appreciated if you would go back to Giano's page and sign your message there. TIA. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - only spotted this just now (you will see from my recent contributions that I have been doing next to nothing wiki-wise over the course of the last week or so). No, I have not been following closely nor researched in any depth at all - simply skimmed FAC and RFA when I had a moment, and was rather surprised at the dispute that had broken out. As I said to Giano, I haven't seen the vilification Giano refers to (please point me to it if you think it will help).

From what I have seen, it seems to me that Tony and others' efforts to improve a page in good faith (are you suggesting that they deliberately set out to sabotage it?) were not appreciated, and then Giano reverted to his preferred version (which, to be blunt, strikes me as a fit of pique - yes, he may have written it; yes, it is certainly a tour de force; yes, he may feel the erosion of his prose to be an affront: but wholesale reversion is essentially a slap in the face and seldom merited). On the other hand, I find it rather surprising that Giano would react like that without some significant provocation, although all I can see from the page history (now I have looked in more depth) is a series of rounds of copyediting. In short, there seemed to be a shortage of WikiLove all round.

If I have an imperfect apprehension of the situation, then again my apologies (I have said as much directly to Giano). It does strikes me that including your name in my initial message to Tony may have been a mistake - probably arising from my skim of the RFA: from the FAC, the main antagonists would seem to be Tony and Giano.

I'm not entirely sure which straw man I have raised with Giano, and I've also signed my message to Giano (now archived - continuing issues with logging out are one of the reasons I have not been around much recently. I've been to an interesting talk on the 1755 Lisbon earthquake this evening and wanted to add something about Earthquake Baroque in the Philippines and Guatemala but keep getting logged out.)

If Giano is thinking of leaving, then I will be over to his talk page directly to encourage him to stay: none of this FAC and RFA business is worth a hill of beans compared to the contribution he has made here. And now I have spent a further hour composing this instead of writing articles; having finished work late again, it is time to go home and see my wife. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If you don't have time to read (rather than skim) the RFA (rather than the FAC), there's not much I can do about it. I quite understand that you might not. I was just saying that that's not a good basis for commenting on it. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, my comments are worth the paper they are not written on. Perhaps they were precipitate, but all I intended to say to Tony was (i) from what I had seen, I didn't think the fault was totally on his side; (ii) his contributions are valued; (iii) don't go. If I have hurt peoples' feelings then I am sorry: I certainly did not intend to. Can I be excused from further self-justification now? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, ALoan, don't worry, I don't want to discuss it further either, and if you're content with your message to Giano, it's not my business. I'm sorry you felt obliged to waste all that time. I meant to enlighten rather than reproach, but I went about it the wrong way. Here are some links plotting the views of some other users during the RFA week. Please don't feel obliged to click on them, they're only for if you're interested and have the time to spare.

• Mindspillage: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

• Bunchofgrapes: [16] [17] [18] [19]

• Ambi: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

• Michael Snow: [27] [28]

• Nichalp: [29] [30] [31]

• Tony1: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

Bishonen | talk 19:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I meant to thank you for the trouble you went to to dig out these links: apologies for the delay in saying so. I see from the above that others changed their opinions of Tony1 as his responses on WP:RFA became increasingly unmeasured, but I'm not sure that changes my starting point (that he makes a good contribution, which is valued, and he should not go); on the other hand, I have just noticed the rather unpleasant noises made by R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) towards Giano on Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_adminship - if that is the vilification Giano is thinking of, I can see what he means, but it wasn't Tony1. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Stuff Wikilove

I've stolen this off someones page. If any of your friends know how to opperate it, I thought we could have one each to direct the flow of friendly comment so to speak! I rather like the idea myself, but it all looks a bit complex. I'm sure you know some-one. Filiocht wouldn't have a clue (he's a poet) Geogre does not seem very technical (I've seen the way he holds that gun - wish I had a gun on my page!) Who would know how to work the bloody thing? Giano | talk 22:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

JRM has one. I suspect it's just a couple of images... testing... yes. It looks complex but is not. :-) To be in instead of out, just change "Out" to "In" in the image code, that's the whole thing. OK, I'll put one at the top of this page—not sure I want to bother with it for very long, though, maybe I'll archive it in a little while. I quite like the idea that nobody knows if I'm lurking close by or not. :-) Bishonen | talk 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Only a woman could think like that! Giano | talk 22:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think you've done something wrong because when I purge your page to see your traffic lights instead of your whereabouts I get Wikipedia:User talk:Bishonen and an invitation to start the page. Well it takes long enough to find one's way right down here as it is, so I certainly don't want to start another one. I've decided not to put them on my page, as I have a rather different clientele to you, but they look very nice here - very brightening!.......Giano | talk 08:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, try it now. Yes, your clientele gets more and more different. Bishonen | talk 08:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Its OK, I'm going out now too, down to the basement for a chat, at least I don't get contradicted down there. Giano | talk 09:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Life is a waste of money

Yeah, me too.

Thanks for reverting the vandal the other day. No telling what they wanted, but it looked random.

I couldn't handle hanging around the IRC any longer. The age of the room seems to be regressing lately, and I'm not sure there are non-trawling speakers most of the time. The schedule I'm on leaves me fairly frustrated for living. I never seem to be awake for any entertainment or at a computer that will give me access to conversation. That's coupled with the fact that I haven't had any article ideas in a while. There are dunces to write about, but I want to start thinking (if I stay employed here next year) about actual scholarship and conference papers (we are encouraged to present one paper a year...this would be remarkable progress for the faculty). It's possible that I could do something with Jonathan Wild, the novel, but I'm not sure it would be anything new. Oh, for a research library and a rare book room! (RG would be for publishing, not presenting on.)

I think that I'll be home tomorrow before awfully late, but I definitely will on Friday. Once Friday comes, though, we're already at the weekend, and that will evaporate in about 4 hours of apparent time. Geogre 22:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

On Saturday, I make a trip southeast, to the land of fruitcakes, to get medicine for Macheath's hips. This is per my mother, who has come to care deeply about Macheath's wellbeing. It's a triumph. Geogre 14:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that I'll be home today, Freyday, by 3:30 PM, eastern. Also, I may not have to travel to fruitcakeville tomorrow. Geogre 12:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll call ya, Geogre. Hey, somebody edited John Dryden, with ambition and skill—an anon, who seems unfamiliar with wiki formatting and style, so a genuine newb. Cool, isn't it? Let's hope they stick around. You've got mail. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Sneaky vandalism

I've had a hard time finding any time for being active on #wikipedia, plus the fact that my computer isn't in the best shape, but I'll return to the channel as things in school calm down and my new computer is delivered. :) I saw the other edit as well, I just did believe that you thought the football part was sneaky vandalism as well, which I thought at a first glance on the article a while ago (at a time when the article actually said that he gave football (soccer) a royal approval, a sport which wasn't invented until the 19th century...). I have no idea where that info might be better suited. -- Elisson • Talk 21:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobody beats Ozymandius, Used Car King!

Duck!

Duck!

Goose!

Ducks are better than drakes. Geogre 13:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Ozymandias has left the building. Are we talking about anything? Is it time to look on the Peterborough Chronicle and despair? [Thinks.] No, not yet. Bishonen | talk 15:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No, no subject. It's just that I was tired of the goat pictures, and, since you had archived, I thought that my duck was better than their goats. There was a wonderful cartoon, once, by Gahan Wilson, I think, with an empty pedestal, trunkless hands, and a grim visage in the sand, and "Nobody Beats Ozymandius TV Appliance King" on the pedestal. I stole the caption. Otherwise, there is Eliot's:

"And the wind shall say

Here were decent, godless people. Their only monument

The asphault road and a thousand lost golf balls"

which is along the same lines. Time to go watch Bergman's Winter Light and feel the joy. Geogre 20:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

ddg... I was bored :)  ALKIVAR™ 06:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Shame on you! Shame! Shame! Shame! for goosing Bishonen. (Lately, three anons have vandalized my page to tell me that I'm ugly. That's so disappointing, as I've been dying for a date with a braindead kiddie vandal.) Geogre 20:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin request

Déjà vu? Could you move Kiruna Municipality to Kiruna? Thanks. Fred-Chess 13:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure. You realize I'm taking your word that there's consensus for this stuff, Fred? Bishonen | talk 14:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Wiglaf was once blamed for a move of Scanian (linguistics) to Skånska, but I explained to everyone it was on my explicit request, and so I take the blame for it, if any. What else can I do? Nominate at Requested Moves and wait 2 weeks....? The alternative is to just move it by hand, and to be frank, I would prefered that to RM.

Fred-Chess 15:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies if my response to your comments were in the wrong place?

This was not an RfC/user nor an RfA/evidence, but a general RfC so I am not quite sure of the ettiquette. I should have added a "comments" section after the voting section?--Silverback 14:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, an Outside view is meant to be just that, not a dialogue, and then other people get to freely make up their minds about whether to endorse it or not. AFAIK the standard is that all comments except actual endorsements go on Talk. I didn't want to argue about it, with the warning example of FuelWagon fresh in mind—look at the furious hair-splitting edit war about such matters that he's waging on his RFC—so I just removed it. It doesn't matter, my comment obviously wasn't the result of a day's profound thought in any case. It was nice of you to get in touch. Please feel free to remove my note about having removed the section, if you like. Bishonen | talk 15:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Frustration...

I'm frustrated with a user in an AfD debate who is repeatedly substantially revising, moving or completely removing comments to which I have already replied. I find it disgusting. Can't somebody be blocked for that kind of dishonest and deceptive behaviour? Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Boepple. (BTW, Boepple should probably be deleted, but he seems like a borderline case, with notability according to WP:MUSIC perhaps depending on the existence of more recordings than those so far unearthed.) Uppland 23:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Count to ten, Tups. I'm assuming good faith, and have edited the AfD page to conform to your request to We99 (at least I hope I have; the History is so long that I've only taken the first and last bits of it into consideration), and left a note on his/her Talk page also. Assuming that this is a new user, they're very likely not technically capable of retrieving the original version themselves; I don't know about you, but I didn't venture anywhere near the History tab for months when I first came here. I hope it works out, please let me know if the problems continue. How's Uppsala University doing? Bishonen | talk 01:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy Gustavus Adolphus Day! The Uppsala University article isn't really progressing. I'm to busy with other things, and although I still edit, I'm right now in a disillusioned phase with respect to Wikipedia and don't feel motivated to spend too much effort on any article. Uppland 21:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

Bishonen, if it's not too much trouble, I'd like you not to alter my comments. If I don't have anything new to say, and I am repeating myself, I should be revising my comments, not adding repeated comments and wasting everyone's time. If you read the revision carefully, I'm not making new arguments but merely refining arguments that have been already made. If Uppland feels strongly about the PhD not making a difference, let him make his argument. I believe I have made mine. If you feel something needs to be added in order to make Uppland's comment understandable, do so. But if I am forced to repeat my "latest" version everytime I want to change something, there won't be enough room for the next person to disagree with me. Thanks for your consideration. We99 01:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

With respect, We99, it's not you so much who are affected by your revision technique, it's the people you discuss with. As you can see on the AfD page, and on this page of mine, Uppland (an experienced and respected editor) is finding it impossible to deal with. Your present system is obviously wasting his time. It also flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. Please don't insist. Bishonen | talk 01:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. OK, edit conflict--it would really be a help if you posted a note in one go, rather than add to it after I've started to reply. You're not forced to repeat your latest version, only whatever new thing you need to say. (Why, though, necessarily say anything new, if you "don't have anything new to say"?) As for "not enough room for the next person"--yes there will always be enough room. Wikipedia is not paper. Bishonen | talk 01:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Bishonen, there is an upper limit to the discussion for deletion. If you don't believe me, try adding a bunch of text and you'll know there is an upper limit. We99 02:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This is getting a bit surrealistic. I assure you the page has as much room as you and the next person could possibly need if there were 20 times as many of you. I'm sorry you find it inconvenient to leave your original input on the page, I can understand how it could be, but it's what you have to do if you're going to respect policy and other editors. Please try to adjust to standard Wikipedia practice. Now you'll have to excuse me, it's the middle of the night where I am. Bishonen | talk 02:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

--Second opinion, here: Bishonen is, in fact, being very polite. It is policy that one is not allowed to change the text of one's vote. If you no longer agree with what you had said, or if you believe that what you have written is inappropriate, you may strike out your previous comment, but you leave it in place, exactly as it was and then write whatever new you have to say underneath the original. To perform the strike-through, place <s> at the beginning of the text to be stricken and </s> at the end of the stricken text. That way, it remains in place so that other readers/editors/voters can see what comment had drawn original comment. Again, do not change the text of your vote. If your vote contains a personal attack, and you wish to remove the insult, you are better off using the strike-through; however, if you had been particularly insulting and wish to remove the text of the insult, you may, but only if you put in its place text indicating that you have removed an insult that you made. (Do not remove insults written by others. Leave that for an administrator to do.) This is not optional behavior. Geogre 15:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC) (Posted on the user's talk page as well.)

Hiya

Hiya back! Your welcome warms me. —Theo (Talk) 21:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh?

You wanted to experience a blocking?!? Wow; hopefully you won't get autoblocked. You know, I just would have moved a couple of pages Willy-style ;). Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 04:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Some surprises there: that Dragonfly blocked me at all, even though I only said "I ought to try being blocked, there's a lot of stuff I don't know about how it works", and the little... scalliwag blocked me for an hour even though I replied "not now, dear" to the whole storm of block offers that arose on IRC. And secondly, even though the autoblocker did bite me, it didn't add the usual 24 hours. Perhaps that feature has been discontinued, it wouldn't be any too soon. And thirdly, the thing i really wanted to know: no, I can't even open the edit mode! IOW, I can't copy it, IOW, I can't work offline, either. Hmm. This is all very useful information. See you, Ben! Bishonen | talk 04:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

How did you do that?

In your edit summary for you current post to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback/Evidence, there is some kind of little arrow thing containing a link to the section you just edited. I am curious about how you did that. Mind sharing? Does is the length of the link, still subject to the character limit of the edit summary window? -- thanx, --Silverback 13:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ouch, I just noticed that some of my edit summaries already have that in them, but others don't. So, I guess I already "know" how to do it, just not consistently. 8-) Must be a system characteristic based on the nature of the edit.--Silverback 13:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It's there if you edit the section, but not if you edit the page. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh... yeah, that's it! :-) Bishonen | talk 14:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez FAC

If you have a minute, would you mind taking a second look at the daughter articles and adjusting or removing your vote accordingly? I believe the ones that are currently linked to are all now presentable. The footnote system is now fixed and fully functioning, and all single paragraph sections have either been built up, merged with other topics. or eliminated. Regards, Saravask 09:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I just did, the minute before I saw this. Sheesh, there is no keeping up with you! Bishonen | talk 10:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

responding here, since incident page is protected

I didn't move Carnildo's post, I had an edit conflict with him when responding to your post, and so I moved my post and maintained the cronology via indents as is my practice. The attraction is to make sure admins know that this is a second violation. I looked at the intro and didn't see any instructions on where to add it, and since some pages instruct to add at the top, that is what I did. I admit I was confused about that.--Silverback 01:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a vandalbot, the page had to be locked. Don't you feel like admitting the second heading was ridiculous while you're about it? If you want a post to be taken seriously, it's just a bad idea to have the heading be a mini-rant. Bishonen | talk 01:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I just thought it was a true statement. I notice people don't like it when rants are true. Admins should do the right thing even if the person reporting it is unpopular and disgustingly right. I find being unpopular serves as a good integrity test for the admins.--Silverback 01:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A true statement? What's that got to do with anything? I hope you noticed I kept the statement, word for word. I'm talking about its (lack of) appropriateness as a heading. Please don't play games. Bishonen | talk 01:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Just the user name is more succinct. I will stick to that in the future. BTW, that was one powerful vandal bot. Can it really create usernames that quick, or does it have to build up a stockpile to draw on later? Have you seen it before? I wonder where it went after the page was protected.--Silverback 01:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No idea, I have no insight into these matters. I'm signing off, it's 3 AM. Bishonen | talk 02:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Fun fun fun

Look at the number of edits to Peterborough Chronicle today, just today. It has had quite a few very dedicated vandals, plus. Oh, and if you thought that linking God and Bible was too much, check out the "helpful" edits. Stuff like world is linked now. Geogre 10:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm watching it. Prolly as you say people from Peterborough, disappointed not to find their school mentioned or something. The Cleanup page used to exhort everybody to "wikify" everything, though not so much recently, I see; I noticed linking was often the only "cleanup" that would actually get done. :-( See how lightly linked The Relapse is? If it wasn't being totally ignored, I expect that would be rectified by now, with repentance, love, virtue, and seduction linked in the first paragraph. Oh, and 1696, of course. Bishonen | talk 11:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

These feebs are hitting it at a furious pace. I have to teach from 8-12, and I only hope that wakeful Europeans are noticing it, because I'll be unable to do much during that time. I have a feeling that what I'd really like to do is revert all the way back to Haeleth's replacement of dashes with emdash, but no point in even thinking about that until the thing's off the main page. People have 1) tried to turn all spellings to British (incompletely, of course), 2) link everything, 3) change hard words into simple ones ("dearth" to "death"). The only other helpful one so far was probably linking philology, since I have to agree that that's an uncommon term. I knew the main page would get tiny fingers clawing at it, but I never anticipated this many. Geogre 11:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, people do watch the FA of the day. See how I've only managed to be first in there the once? Of course I've been asleep, also. But [ominously] I'm awake now. Bishonen | talk 11:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! I've gotten to block three vandals now. This is so much...fun? Kill one, and another takes its place. The world isn't going to run out of stupid any time soon. Geogre 15:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Never have I seen a dusty academic article generate so many attempts at vandalism. I could understand it if there were anything interesting about the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles to the lay reader. BTW, news at work that makes me push the effects of the happy pills. :-( I've got to call my headhunters...again. I so hate this. Geogre 19:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No fun. :-( Mail. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the questions re: The Relapse. Those are very good questions Saravask raises -- extremely perceptive. I suppose we can lean too much on our other, survey articles and think, "Well, gosh, we've said that the libertines were on the run by the 1690s so much and that William of Orange is the reason so many times that we ought not say it here." We're wrong, of course. What was news in Restoration drama and Restoration literature (or Augustan drama) is news still in Chrononhotonthologos (a play I propose to write about soon but which I need to learn to spell consistently). Geogre 03:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Disagreement" about block

'Sokay, I figured as much. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't sound like I was attached to the idea of only a 24 hour block. Happy Friday, wherever you are! Dmcdevit·t 08:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Harro5

Hey Bishonen. I know you've seen the complaints by a group of editors on my talk page, and just want to say that I will not allow my good work over at the Schools Portal to be disrupted by these guys. I agree I got angry, but also wish to point out that I've vowed not to edit the St Michael's Grammar School pages any more, as told here. So basically, I've moved on, but if any more unfounded complaints or vandalism to any pages relating to my long work here on Wikipedia (eg. my page, Caulfield Grammar School, the Schools Portal) I will come back to you or another admin looking to see people blocked for what really is a group trying to stand over me as I do what I see as good work here. Thanks for listening. Harro5 19:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm going to let you deal with this. This image, Image:Simonage1.jpg, is used in the disputed and currently AFDed Simon Gipson article. Follow the link to its source and you'll see its from The Age, but is listed as public domain by a member of the editing group who listed the RFC on me. See the newspaper's copyright page [39] and it explicitly says all material is copyrighted. Image:Simongipson.jpg is also untagged. Thanks. Harro5 20:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Dealt with your issues as mentioned above. Although I do feel it would have been more constructive to post this on the talk page of the artices, or photos. Sadly further highlights your true motives. Beyondcapricorn 06:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Replying to your comments on the RFC talk page, am I required to try to initiate some mediation or an ending to this problem? I still fail to see how I am really at fault here. The suggestion I have an overt bias is nonsense - I began the Wesley College, Melbourne and Scotch College, Melbourne articles, have contributed to or edited numerous school articles, run a portal featuring numerous schools - and I am being chastisied by persistent vandals who decided to take it more seriously than most. Please give me some advice on what I need to do next. Does RFC have any major consequences? I've never really been involved in the dispute process on Wikipedia. Your statement, and the amount of support it has received, seem to vindicate me. Thanks in advance. Harro5 06:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Harro, RfC is a request for comments from the community. It isn't punitive (though if the community is unhappy with either party, it won't be a comfortable process for that party, obviously). It has the double purpose of a) making the people involved see how the community looks on actions such as theirs, and b) giving a basis of evidence for if the dispute resolution process is taken the next step, to a Request For Arbitration, RFAr. So far indeed the community seems to vindicate you. Insofar as the process is collecting evidence for an RFAr by anybody, it would be one by you, and you might want to consider that (though I have a better suggestion below). Badly-founded RFCs will do that, they bite the side that brought them. That happens a lot, since they're often brought by the most litigious members of the community, and those least aware of how their actions look to others. To answer your concrete question: no, you're not required to try mediation or anything like that, that's what the other side should do (should already have done, as I've told them, but they seem to be as suspicious of my motives as they are of yours). That's the formal situation, but there's another way of looking at it: You're an experienced editor, they're newbies, you might want to be the bigger man here, and try to ask for mediation anyway. There's WP:TINMC ...oh, no, there isn't, I just looked, and WP:TINMC aren't taking on new cases, they're too backlogged. OK, then, there's the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, take a look at their page Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Your best bet there is to get in touch with the acting chair, User:Redwolf24, directly, he's very quick and decisive and would steer you right. If you're an IRCer, the easiest way is to speak with Red on #wikipedia, he's there most of the time. (Well, given the time zone thing, not most of your time, he's in Canada I think, but you'll get hold of him easily, anyway.) If not, use e-mail or a note on his page. It seems to me that mediation might have a good chance of working, and if it did, it would be an advantage to everybody involved. Not to mention a big advantage to ArbCom, backlogged and overwhelmed as they are. Plus, if you bring an RFAr, I can see the ArbCom recommending mediation as a first step.

• P.S. to Beyondcapricorn: in replying to Harro above I'm trying to inform you as well, I hope you're reading this. Note especially what I say about the routes to mediation, I didn't know about WP:TINMC being backlogged when I discussed with your friend, the IP I've been speaking with on the RFC talkpage (this would be easier if he had a username). If you care at all about getting community support, as I assume you do (or why bring an RFC), I have two urgent bits of advice for both of you:

1. Stop insisting you have already provided evidence for "trying and failing to solve the dispute", in the face of my explanations. It shows disrespect for our practices, which annoys people, and disregard for truth and likelihood, which just makes a bad impression.
2. Stop referring to Harro5's "true motives", as you do yet again, above: that he's activated by school rivalry, hatred for your school, and such. In the first place it's insulting, I'm not sure if you can hear yourself and put yourself in the other person's shoes in that regard. Also it's just too childish, it erodes other people's respect for you (not him, you). Worst, it flies in the face of a really basic civility principle here, which is Assume good faith. Motives aren't even relevant, because nobody but the person in question has access to them. Just don't go there. Talk about actions and words! And do it much more specifically than you've been doing. Give examples, give diffs. Those, if you have them, might actually impress people who are neutral on this issue, while your large, sweeping gestures in the direction of "obviously-this-is-the-case" just ... don't have that effect. --Bishonen | talk 10:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Beyondcapricorn and Comradeash have seemingly retracted from the RFC completely, and have started doing some useful stuff [40]. Hopefully this matter may have resolved itself within their group. Its quite likely, as with many incidents involving noobs, that they didn't think it would take so much effort to get their point across and have simply forgotten it all. Let's see if they continue this more positive trend. Harro5 19:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup. Beyondcapricorn has been doing large-scale crossing-out of all his posts relating to this business, and 220.253.48.90 seems to be getting left holding the baby RFC. It never did have any evidence of attempted resolution, and now it doesn't even have the requisite signatures, after beyondcapricorn removed his own and also MacBandit's (hmmmm-sock puppetry?). See the notes at the top of the page, here's mine. So the RFC's getting delisted tomorrow, unless 220.253.48.90 gets his act together considerably, and also getting deleted, provided you want it to be.[41] Don't see why you would, exactly—I'd keep it around if I were you. Anyway, I hope 220.253.48.90 is also finding something better to do, and I rather suspect he sees the pointlessness of going on with the RFC and is content to have it delisted. Still, in any case, I would point you and him towards User:Redwolf24 and mediation. It's a good process, absolutely not punitive, and might make everybody involved feel like they've got peace rather than mere ceasefire. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it up there as a record of my actions being vindicated. These sorts of disputes have popped up on occasion when students discover Wikipedia and are outraged that people from other schools are editing that info, so it might come in handy as precedent. Also, I have been approached tentatively about a future RFA, and while this RFC has shelved that for a little while longer (maybe till after Christmas provided no more problems), it alsways helps with full disclosure. Thanks for all your help, and for being a rational mediator while I tried to fight my way out of the corner I was being forced into. Lastly, and please just a quick note on my talk page, do you feel I should stay away from the St Michaels article or stay around to clean it up a bit? Having a look at it now - St Michael's Grammar School - its probably even messier than the Caulfield article was when you helped me out with it a couple of months ago. Thanks again. Harro5 23:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Help

Hi could you look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Objectivist poets/archive1 for me? I'm stuck. Filiocht | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 08:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If anything, I think there is possibly less interest in the 20th century stuff I do; I'm not about to write on Plath or Heaney, for example. I plug on without any really clear reason in my head, other than writing those articles is the thing I most enjoy doing here. Thanks for the sig tip. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm hoping to take a look at it today or tomorrow. A little ennui over on my side as left me fit for nothing but squishing speedy deletes and thundering on VfD. (I do think Station Island is one of the finest single collections of poems I've read in ages, although none of Heaney's other volumes have been as moving for me. The article we have on him stresses his nature poetry, but Station Island is a very different book from all those -- much more Modernist.) (As for Plath, it hardly matters what one writes: desperate fans will rewrite it.) Geogre 11:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Tricks?

Thanks for the message, we'll see in a second if the sig thing is fixed or not.Tricks aren't very good, I thought I might feel better about the place after a time away, but its still pretty much the same nicht wahr. The response to Rhe Relapse was disappointing, but frankly what were you realistically expecting, knowing the place as you do? FAC seems to have become a strangle place these days of increasingly new requirements, demands, and needs which I have decided I no longer wish to attempt to meet; in fact I shall not try to meet them. Rather than judging each subject on its own individual requirements everything is now required to conform to blanket diktats, often legislated by people who seem to have little better to do than enforce them, when their time would be far better spent writing a page themselves, rather than passing comment on anything from the legal validity of copyright to English grammar, both subjects on which they are generally and factually completely ignorant.

At least The Relapse was justly featured, and apart from the one mild objection (was that another new diktat?) those that read it seemed to like it, it just lacked the necessary tabloidness in the title to pull them in my new title should do that (although that's not why I chose it), but God the google hits do seem to be more gynaecological than architectural! Shame it's not going to FA, it would have been fun to see people demanding "Family" after the Surname section, it's technically correct as it is for an Italian family as it is. Wish I could make people read The Relapse, perhaps it will become heavily vandalised then you will know people are at least looking at it. As ever Giano | talk 13:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Marsden is back

User:Marsden is back, using his IP address, 69.138.215.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and apparently spending most of his time reverting those he doesn't like, or who he has been asked to revert. Now he's being even more disruptive; in order to avoid going over the 3RR, he's added a link to a bogus hate site at Self-hating Jew instead, and posting trolling text to a bunch of talk pages (including yours) about "nigger lovers". I'm considering a 1 week block for disruption at this point, unless you think you or someone else should do it first. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any admins who "like" him. I think I'm just going to have to block him, and post about it on WP:AN/I. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That was my little joke, Jayjg. Bishonen|talk 17:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I think his recent activities have made me a little humourless. I'll try to loosen up a bit, as I go report his blocking on WP:AN/I. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I responded to your concerns on my Rfa

My response is in the Rfa after your vote. I'm sorry you felt that I had done the wrong thing as I was only trying to keep two editors from going to war and that is all.--MONGO 20:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I'm sorry that you don't find anything constructive or worth learning from in my comments. Bishonen|talk 20:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess I am pretty dense as I guess you're telling me that next time I need to stay out of the middle of things? Accepting that I must have missed your point, please explain so I won't make the same mistake twice. I'm not trying to be obtuse, I guess I'm just tired, man. I need clarification and being blunt with an ogre like me might be best.--MONGO 21:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I read through your commentary and understand now. I appreciate that you took the time to post what you did and I can see now that my efforts probably seemed very obtrusive. I did not have all the facts and I was wrong to interfere without them. I did not think that Silverback was in the right, if that helps with clarification. I watch WP:AN a lot and I saw that situation and thought I could make a difference...when ElC and 172 explained the situation I was unreceptive but it was clear to me that Silverback was about to get in over his head so I "told" him to back off. I shouldn't have meddled. I have not gotten involved in such a situation since so I did learn from it. Thanks again for taking the time to post the well researched commentary to qualify your vote. I do appreciate that very much.--MONGO 21:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Coming from you, it means a lot that you (hopefully) don't think I'm all bad. Thank you for your reconsideration and regardless of the outcome, I'll do my best to not betray your new found trust. MONGO 12:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

FAC proposal

Salve, Bishonen!
Thank you for your comments. First, I would note I was unable to return to Wikipedia for several days; thus there was no reply to the objectors on Bob McEwen. That said, I do not understand the objection to links. What is the issue there? I can think of other articles with many links which successfully passed the FAC process.

The peer review process doesn't work either, thus I do not use it anymore. For example, I give you two articles that were praised or received no objections, but lost at FAC:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Bruce Johnson/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bruce Johnson
• Wikipedia:Peer review/The Western Star/archive1 andWikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Western Star

I believe the article review process is broken because there is no consistency and not enough participation, thus my suggestions. PedanticallySpeaking 19:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping out in the basement, I'm sure its appreciated! I've just sent you an emial about something I feel strongly! Giano | talk 10:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

A very valuable prize

I am very proud of a new barnstar I just got on my talk page. It's tres cool. Geogre 11:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

JRRT

not in disgust, dear Bishonen, and I wish I would get a couple of days to address the concerns voiced. Wiglaf has said he is going to help too. If the nominiation is flushed off the list, I may take the liberty of re-submitting it as soon as I think I addressed all points. I must say, however, that our FA criteria seem to be in rather lofty heights these days; the article is at least as good as those featured on the other languages WP. I do appreciate, however, that en: has a somewhat more heavy burden of responsibility compared to minor projects, so I suppose the objections are fair enough. dab (ᛏ) 17:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't help but overhear

File:AlGoreSpeaking2004.jpg

Reboot the internet!!

From User talk:Saravask:

And thank you again for your great comments on The Relapse, I 'm not sure I made it clear how much they encouraged me. While nobody'd found any fault with the article, out of the few who voted on it [...], nobody'd exactly sounded interested either. "OK, no problems that I can see, support."

Some hack writer once started some book or other with a good line:

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

What's true for families and happiness is also true for Featured Articles and quality. If you want more input, you are just going to have to learn to write crummier stuff! That will give us some uniquely bad points to talk about, instead of an uninteresting beautifully written and complete article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah... not to say I didn't appreciate your support, and that of others who commented. My field of interest is probably intrinsically uninteresting, not to say off-putting to many people, I guess, and I absolutely don't blame them. Restoration drama is an oddment and no mistake. It's just that I feel interest in it is actually dwindling ... grumble, grumble ... or I used to write better, or whatever. Maybe FAC is going through a bit of a down period as far as commenting goes, also. I'm sure I sounded spoiled, sorry! And I do appreciate all the FAC work you put in, Bunch. Your Black pepper is a very cool article, beautifully illustrated and with a fine FAC discussion (jealously :-)). --Bishonen|talk 17:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

I imagine FAC is in a bit of a slump. I've only been hanging around there a couple months, and I've already become inured to people "losing faith in the process", and so forth. (Not to mention the unmentionable horror of Tony1's departure after his RfA's self-destruction.) Still, I find looking at the FAC-side of Wikipedia a lot more rewarding than hanging out in, say, AfD, or worrying about how maybe one in 20 Wikipedia articles are worth reading at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind message, to which I have replied in the spirit intended. May the Lord go with you Bishonen dearest, and may peace be with you. Giano | talk 21:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Pacis exsisto vobis. Is supremus orator: Thank you for your message on my page. I must tell you: If you are trying to impress Jimbo, and want to be invited on to his Arbcom (or whatever it's called) you are failing miserably, if he doesn't want poor Filiocht then he certainly won't want you. As a matter of fact he (Jimbo that is) has been in private communication with me, for my thoughts on the subject, of course I've declined the honour myself because of my many other charitable commitments elsewhere. But I have made some recommendations to him, as he said only the other day when thanking me for his lovely holiday at my Palazzo Splendido, Caymen Islands - "Oh Giano, Giano, Giano (for that is what he calls me) if only all editors were as good and wise as you..................." Giano | talk 22:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• No I'm afraid you can't. I prefer to keep familiarity to my closest friends and confidantes. You'll only be wanting a free holiday at Palazzo Splendido yourself next. Now if you'll forgive me I switching the internet off, as I'm supposed to be working on more important matters. Giano | talk 23:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Don't forget to reboot the internet before you go — think of the rest of us, please! El_C 04:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

And So We Are Two

OwenX pointed out that yesterday marked exactly two years since my first edit as Geogre. I pointed out that there had been 3-6 months prior to that where I had been convinced that getting an account would mean spam e-mail. I think 2 in Wikipedia years is like 40 in human years. (The title of this section is a reference to a book written for new parents.) Geogre 14:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Not a reference to Now We Are Six by A. A. Milne? Boring! Bishonen | talk 14:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Damn, one-upped again! Your expertise on A.A. Milne is much greater than mine. :-) (Yeah, I was making a reference to Milne without even knowing it. Shows how trustworthy my allusions are.) (I'm old enough to have my allusions about the world shattered.) Geogre 18:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm old enough to talk like a scriptkiddie: you say "shattered", I say "asplode" (a verb totally without inflection), potato, potahto. Bishonen | talk 18:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the second kiddiehood! The funny thing is that I'm in the computer generation, so a lot of the kiddie slang is actually from pop culture that we had in the 1980s, when the PC moved out of the garage. Now, the "old timers" are about 40, and the kiddies revel in learning their dorm joke phrases. (I can't remember the movie that "esplode" came from, but it was a dumb comedy of the 80's.) Mine is the generation of the bastards of young: "No willingness to claim us/ We've got no war to name us.//We are the sons of no one/ Bastards of young," as the man sang. Geogre 20:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

At one remove? Happy birthday Geogre, but I'd have said 50, not 40. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly so. Two may be 40, 50, or 60 -- it is whatever age it is for a person to have all her or his vitality sapped and hopes broken. Seeing youngsters saying that "AfD may collapse, but that collapse is a long way in the future" is almost touching. "I used to say that," I feel like telling them. Geogre 18:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I've put the diff concerned on email in full. It's all too late now, the photographer has resigned her unsought after post and I am bereft. I shall just have to learn to draw.  :-( Giano | talk 07:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Duncharris' RFC status

Hi Bishonen,

You've probably noticed already, but I've added a section to the RFC as you suggested.

Could I trouble you for feedback? Do you think it's adequate for the purpose?

Thanks, Ben Aveling 22:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think you come across as a civil and respectful contributor in your comments to Dunc, but no, I don't think they qualify as attempted "dispute resolution". For that they would need to be both more elaborate, and more neutral. My advice to you is to get a neutral third party in, via [42], for instance, before the 48 hours are up, and ask them to mediate. That's just my opinion, though. I don't suppose it's shared by everyone, and I don't have any plans for agitating to get the RFC deleted, or for insisting further on the points I've made. No telling what my post may prompt others to do, though, so I think you're wise to address the issue. What I was hoping to achieve, really, was to encourage to mediation. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen,

We could try to get a mediator. But I'm not sure what we would ask them to do. I don't think it would be useful to ask them to try find a middle ground on the issue of Dunc's incivility. Dunc has said that he knows that what he did was wrong, but that doesn't stop him doing it. It didn't even stop him being rude in his apology in the RFC.

But perhaps a mediator might be useful to bring some order to the RFC itself - lots of people (including me) have been writing all over it, which is not helpful. If people would agree to appoint a mediator for the conduct of the RFC, that would be useful, and I could propose that.

But I think you are thinking of a wider role in the dispute? And maybe you have a different view of the dispute to my own? For me, the dispute is about Dunc's behaviour towards people who disagree with him. I'm afraid I don't see a lot of room to negotiate that.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I changed me mind. I stopped trying to discuss and reverted to telling Dunc how he should behave far too quickly. I agree that a mediator is needed, and I've got just the person in mind. Assuming Dunc agrees, would you mediate for us? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Delighted to hear it, Ben. I've just responded on the RFC page, right underneath your endorsement. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

MONGO RfA

I've been promoted to admin! I deeply appreciate your reconsideration and your decision to withdraw your opposition. I'll start out slow for sure and I will do everything I can to ensure that you know that you made the right decision. Never hesitate to ask me if you need anything as I'll do all I can! Thank you!--MONGO 09:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks! Lemon Meringue muffins no less! See you around!--MONGO 08:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

For all the great FAs from Filiocht, 23rd Nov. 2005

Random signature question

This is kind of a random question, but my sigature has been acting up and I'd thought I'd ask an admin what the problem might be. The problem should be obvious from it's display. Thanks! Cheers! ''*Exeunt*'' Ganymead [[User_talk:Ganymead|^{<font color="green">Dialogue?</font>}]] 16:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Ganymead. Mediawiki got updated in a way that broke sigs like yours (and mine). You can fix it by typing the exact wikicode for the whole thing in the nickname field in Preferences and ticking the "raw signatures" box. Cripes... yours is so complicated, I'm not sure what it looked like, but for my plain sig, with a simple talk link, I typed [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]]. You can do the mutatis mutandis on that, I'm sure, for your pretty colors and stuff. Unless something about those codes has also been broken, but I don't think so. Ticking the raw sig box is central. Please let me know if it still doesn't work, I know there's a help page somewhere that I may be able to unearth.--Bishonen | talk 17:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. User:Bunchofgrapes put a link to the signature help on my talk page. WP:SIGHELP I fiddled with it and it's not what it used to be, but I think I finally worked it out. Someone really needs to translate that page into simple english or something...all the technical talk makes my head spin. Perhaps sonnet form would be better for people like us! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sketch

I made this sketch of you after the remorse I felt for kickbanning you on IRC. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 06:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Thank you. I really look younger, of course. Bishonen | talk 06:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Academia - featured status?

Bish-fishing for a second opinion (anyone else passing by is welcome to comment): Academia is a featured article, but I don't think it should be, and consider nominating it on WP:FARC. Except for the sections on the ancient world and the medieval period, it is very U.S.-centric, partly by showing a lack of awareness of other perspectives (see section "Recent_economic_changes"), partly by using U.S. examples, where, say, Italian, French or German examples would be more appropriate (as in the section "Rise_of_academic_societies"). Where it is not entirely U.S.-centric, international perspectives are mostly limited to England. The section "Eighteenth_and_nineteenth_centuries" is all about the U.S., despite America still being a backwater at the time. With all due respect for the University of Pennsylvania and Ben Franklin, in an 18th century history of academia, one would expect the University of Göttingen, the University of Leiden and a host of other European universities (and other institutions) to be more approriate to mention. And whatever happened to the renaissance, humanism, in fact the entire period from the end of the middle ages until the mid-18th century? Is the foundation of the Royal Society really the only thing worth mentioning from that period?

The article is not badly written, but a clear systemic bias, significant omissions, and a lack of proper referencing, makes this inappropriate for featured status. Have I left anything out? --Uppland 09:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you've put together a pretty good case for listing on WP:FARC. The article reads as if the Renaissance never happened and non-English-speaking universities disappeared with the death of Aquinas. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, dear, US-centrism obviously wasn't an issue in June 2004. I think you have a very good case for listing it on FARC, and I hope you'll keep the word "backwater", I like it. :-) (Also, best make sure you don't risk sounding as if academic Europe is the only region that's missing.) Bishonen | talk 15:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have now added it to Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. Perhaps it will provoke some degree of improvement. Uppland 16:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose there are universities outside of the US. At least they do seem to go someplace between the ages of 19 and 24, but, honestly, do they have academia? Surely not! Geogre 20:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thursday, November 24th

I'm thankful for your friendship and endurance. Geogre 20:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to come to IRC? Bishonen | talk 20:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

FAC

Maybe I should give up, too. God but copyright paranoia is rife. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I need a hug...

Damn, I've had a ridiculous night here. Glad to see you and Geogre on the recent changes page. I damn near walked away for good. Again. All over a single sentence. I think I'll be spending a lot less time doing new pages patrol. Hey, I broke my AfD addiction. I can break this one too. Take care. Your pal, Lucky 6.9 04:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

/me hugs Ralph. Very sorry to hear it...what, me on Recent Changes? Talk about sleepwalking. Just about to fall into bed, you wouldn't even believe me if I told you what time it is over here. Bishonen | talk 05:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Btw, it's 6Am. GO TO BED Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

10:IF (Time) > 600 GOTO 20

20:IF (Time) < 1200 GOTO 30

30: GOTO Bed

40: ELSE GOTO wp:rfc

50: END

(See, I can too program!) Geogre 14:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

60: COMEFROM wp:afd

(But I can program INTERCAL!) Bishonen | talk 14:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

(I suppose that's better than programming in the Interzone, which is where junk code comes from.) Leave AfD? But I'm having so much fun there. :-( I really, really, really should finish Todd's biography and do some good. Geogre 19:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Student prisons

Speaking of universities, did English universities ever have student prisons? Surely they must have had something like that? I am looking for some nice archaic English term, in order to be able to remove the Karzer article from its current German-specific title. Uppland 17:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a thing, sorry. There seems to have been plenty of corporal punishment going on at Oxford and Cambridge in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period: the students were very young, and got treated the way children did. And the "sending down" was frequent for much longer, of course. But no prison, AFAIK. See how a google for "'student jail' + history" keeps throwing up Germany, mainly Heidelberg? Bishonen | talk 17:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC).

Thanks, I guess I will have to make do with "student prison" or "student jail" (not gaol?). The German student prisons are well-preserved and famous tourist attractions and get a lot of hits for that reason. There were Swedish counterparts: in Swedish a student prison could be called a carcer[43] (like in German) but was also known as a proba or prubba. There was one in Uppsala where the Domtrappkällaren restaurant is today[44], presumably the one mentioned by Anna Maria Lenngren here, another one in Lund[45][46] (no indication of location) and there is a preserved proba at the old 17th century gymnasium by the Cathedral in Västerås (here - I have downloaded the image which is supposedly from 1910 and hence PD). They seem to have existed in the Netherlands as well, at least that old diploma mill in Harderwijk had one, mentioned here. (The problem is to find the right search term for something too obscure to be found in a normal modern dictionary.) Uppland 22:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

My Faith In Wikipedia Was Eaten By a Bear!

My Faith In Wikipedia Was EATEN BY A BEAR!

But you managed to make him vomit it back up again! Sure, this is gross, and will require a very long and powerful hose, but I'm glad I have that faith back. In return, please take my barnstar eating pet bear to protect you from any nasty users you may meet along the way. karmafist 19:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

A cup of chocolate for you

I hope you're soon to have the real thing, but, until then, here is some virtual chocolate. Geogre 10:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Melt it, shape it into a pill, and take orally twice a day or as needed.

Unjustifed blocking

You recently blocked me, citing "Ongoing harrassment (sic) of multiple users". That block was utterly and wholly unjustified; the allegation unfounded. If you feel otherwise, please cite diffs showing me "harassing" other users. Andy Mabbett 21:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that the injunctions require only that comments be a personal attack in the opinion of an administrator, why on earth would you want to be provocative? You think you're right? Fine. You want to protest? Fine. You feel like you're not done with a particular user or admin? Not so fine. Relax and focus on things that are non-controversial. Escalation will do no one any good. Challenging for diffs and demanding that someone prove to your satisfaction that you are in the wrong isn't constructive. Geogre 22:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What you have written appears to bear no relation to my question. Andy Mabbett 09:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I asked for evidence of your (Bishonen's) allegation of "Ongoing harrassment (sic) of multiple users". You cite (on my talk page) one diff, which is in no way harassment (if you imagine that it was, why didn't you block Karmafist for harassing me?). You have no such evidence. Andy Mabbett 18:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

UK Schools range block

Looks like we're getting some collateral damage from the block. I posted here, but since it's in the middle of the page and the board is high traffic, I thought I'd let you know. Looking for some input from somebody more experienced with dealing with blocks. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm, that wouldn't be me. Thanks for your help, Graeme. I see you've unblocked now and are taking a wikibreak, I hope you're not pissed off with the place, but will return refreshed. Thanks again. Bishonen | talk 19:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

C'mon let's celebrate. Sorry about the foul glass, best I could find. Drink up it'll do you good. Giano

Geogre and Giano

Awww, you guys. There's nothing quite like your concern for my ... welfare, I mean that quite literally. Chocolate pills and champagne! And is that pâté de fois gras? Can I have some Turkish delight and a liqueur for afters? Bishonen | talk 19:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Important AfD

Hello again. Recently I've been having difficulties in getting a sufficient amount of feedback from the top caliber editors of the history and politics articles-- needed in order to establish a consensus in the vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. It'll be much appreciated if you can take a look. Regards. 172 22:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No way do I want to voluntarily get into that puddle, but my $0.02 is this. "Dictator" has a specific meaning from Roman law. The title was revived very specifically by Mussolini. In Rome, the "dictator" was something to be avoided (after Cincinnatus), and it had already shaded to synonymous with "tyrant" by the time of Augustus. However, none of the leaders of Italy or Germany or anywhere else has quite been a dictator ("word is law") with its full meaning, or none have since Mussolini. In English, the word was used as a full synonymn for "tyrant" beginning in World War 2. It has been since used solely to indicate "bad absolute ruler." Thus, it is inherently POV (and "inherently POV" is part of the deletion guideline for lists). It is such because there are alternative terms. Further, the alternatives are always (really, always) more precise than "dictator." For example, Idi Amin was a bad absolute ruler. I share the POV that he was a "dictator," but if I were going to be precise and avoid POV, which I have to do in an encyclopedia, I'd say he was a "president for life." Pol Pot did not bear the job title "dictator," either. The precise terms for these rulers is more descriptive of their cultures and societies, and they avoid POV. Therefore, the list is inherently POV and can only exist as an expression of a POV, since a more natural designation would avoid that POV. This is on top of the general uselessness of List of articles. Geogre 02:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, but "the general uselessness of List of articles"? Surely not - the Featured lists are excellent. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed they are. Bad lists are as useless as bad articles, good lists are very valuable. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm a meanie: I think lists are non-encyclopedic. Of course the list as a thing can be useful. After all, the cross index was a major advance in science and art. It's just that I don't think they belong in encyclopedias, even when they're good. (I told you that I'm a meanie.) I just think that these lists (list of dictators, of communists, of Jews, of Arabs, of Christians, of gays, of transgendereds, of porn industrials, list of greats) are not just not-encyclopedic (per lists), but deletable lists. Geogre 10:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah - they are useful, but not encyclopedic. A fine distinction. I can see why a list of dictators (or the other lists that you mention) may have problems with NPOV or usefulness or notableness, but the featured lists are models of encyclopedic-ness and usefulness. I should have thought that a list of Presidents of the United States is precisely the sort of entry that you might find in an encyclopedia. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, being charitable, the vast majority of "List of" articles (even just the ones that have made it to Category:Lists) are not featured, although plenty of them are "good" even if they are not featured. However, given that 899 out of 900 articles are not featured, although again may are "good", it would be equally true to talk about "the general uselessness of articles" full stop. Oh dear - perhaps we should give up! -- ALoan (Talk) 10:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Gosh - how odd - I didn't get an edit conflict when my reply wiped out Geogre's ... Sorry! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Beware the revenge of the blue meanie. BTW, you make a fair point about "the general uselessness of articles". So many I look at are somewhere between bad and vile. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Defending my precious distinction, I would even say that many articles are encyclopedic without being useful. A list of Presidents would appear in an encyclopedia, although usually as a part of President of the United States of America or Presidents of the United States of America. A problem I have with lists is that they invite, inevitably, unsorted, undistinguished dumps of data and bar-bet trivia (List of songs that mention their title in the lyrics). These things get closer to Guiness Book of World Records than Britanica all the time, and they provide a perfectly cozy home for our Aspberger's contributors. At any rate, most articles are garbage, of course, and as long as we have those who believe that any deletion is criminal for hurting feelings and imposing elitist standards, we're going to suffer the dark proliferation of them. Even with more snobs and fewer Everything2 refugees, though, the bulk of them would be lumpen. Our age skew is one reason. Our demoticism is another. The demos hasn't used a research library, hasn't used a serious encyclopedia, and yet the demos writes what it imagines an encyclopedia is and writes information to the limit of its own curiosity (which is to the extent of "Able Baker is a store in Wales"). Geogre 12:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Uberuberallesbris

(A bris for all supermen!) Personal attack responded to with a totally appropriate flame. Geogre 02:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And it drew further comment! (sigh) Geogre 13:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Preston Plucknett

I shall be awarding a special "Siciliano order of merit" to the editor who contributes the most words over the next two days to Preston Plucknett. This important page is essential to the survival of our encyclopedia, and indeed mankind - a species which probably originated from Preston Plucknett. The Irish editor has already refused, the American editor has pleaded ignorance, hence it is left to us in Europe to say: "Advance Mankind and Preston Plucknett!" Giano | talk 21:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• EMAIL Giano | talk 10:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hurry Hurry Hurry! The closing date for this prestigious award is 23.30 GMT 4th December. So far by a very narrow margin Uppland is in the lead. He has also given me a very nice future link to my latest yawningly long page - so the "Order of the Golden Chain" Saw may well be his by tomorrow evening. Giano | talk 22:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Go Tups! Bishonen | talk 22:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There is less than half an hour to the closing date of this prestigious award - time is running out. Uppland is in the lead in spite of a brave contest from ALoan. May the best man win Giano | talk 21:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Time expired Uppland is the winner! And a very good effort too, in spite of severe slothfulness from some other nameless editors! Giano | talk 21:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are some prestigious voodoo doughnuts for Tups to enjoy while eyeing your strange trophy warily. Bishonen | talk 22:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, dooo-nuts in strange poisonous colours (*dribble*)... I now have to go out looking for some Sicilian peasants to impress with my new knighthoods. Uppland, KSWOM (1st cl.), KGGS (1st cl.) 12:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Er...why edit somebody else's archive?

Because I edited Linked. When I changed it from an auto-redirect to a dis-ambig, I (being a good citizen) checked the backlinks to make sure that people who linked to the redirect wouldn't be suprised to find a disambig as opposed to a redirect. I came across a few "junk" links that weren't links to a subject, but were just links for the sake of links. To clean out the nonsense in the backlinks, I removed them. I didn't miss the point of "overlinking" -- but I think it'd be best if people made their points without doing the exact thing they want people not to do. From a constant user of "what links here," these junk links can add up to a fair amount of extra editing work. --Quasipalm 20:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, why have you blanked User talk:Pcpcpc? And why are you watching a "closed" account's archive? I'm sure you understand this ends up looking like sock-puppetry. --Quasipalm 20:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

?? No, I'm afraid I don't understand that. Do please elucidate, your questions and your accusatory tone interest me strangely. Does it end up looking like I'm a puppet or a puppeteer? If you ask nicely (mind that, now), I'll be happy to give you a few links and references to attest to my utter, mind-numbing respectability. If you try the asking nicely thing, I may even tell you why I watch Pcpcpc and his socks. Bishonen | talk 20:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You're being accused of being Pcpcpc? LOL!! Mind you, come to think of it ... SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Geez, Bishonen, I had no idea you were a sockpuppet. Is a get-well card appropriate? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If she's Pcpcpc, it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey there, Bunch. Hey, Slim, I bet YOU watch Pcpcpc's pages too, hmmmm? You miserable sock! The thing is, I don't quite know what to say, because I don't know who my accuser might know and trust--refer to ALoan, who wrote the note on Pcpcpc's talkpage? Link to my RFA and ask if s/he recognizes any of the names? Don't both those things sound a bit shady, though? Collusive? Help me! Bishonen | talk 21:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Snork! -- ALoan (Talk) 21:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict party! Don't you mean the Snork Maiden? One fact is emerging, anyway: a lot of people are watching MY page. I'm sure you understand that makes you end up looking like a cabal, don't you? Bishonen | talk 21:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Snork Maiden is a redlink. Snork puppets? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup, a cabal with too many inside jokes... or maybe a cabal of sock puppets! Now I might be on to something there... I'll be leaving now, but I'm still curious why you blanked Pcpcpc's talk page. On second thought, I've lost interest, but watch out for sly removal of a linked linkeds on random users' talk pages in the future.  ;-) --Quasipalm 21:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh... yes, of course I accept your apology, say no more. Bishonen | talk 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you all talking about Pcpcpc, he's not returned has he? - This is bringing on one of my twitches Giano | talk 22:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Bishonen is on PCP! Well, someone is. (And I'm one of those jokers who links link, but I never thought it was WP:POINT. I thought it was just ... a lark.) (And estimates of my gravity are vastly exaggerated. At least my personality's gravity. My personal specific gravity is rather impressive, but I'm working on it between bites of doughnut.) Geogre 00:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh... Partido Comunista del Peru, a.k.a. Shining Path? Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative Project? Primary care physician? Man, that's a big dab page, I'm lost. --Bishonen | talk 01:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I meant Polycibin Codeine and Paragoric, of course. At least it's what allows me to read through ArbCom on Comics. Geogre 13:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I have some? Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Would that be the Phencyclidine you're after, Fil? (Cool kids like you call it angel dust.) Sure thing, help yourself. Bishonen | talk 12:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, even when I was a kid I wasn't cool. Something about being to cynical, apparently. Maybe I should have been a kid in the 80s? Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. It's a great way to get technicolor in black and white dreams, which is apparently something quite a few of the contributors to the debate there need. Then the codeine kicks in, making all the words slow down and dance, allowing them to stand there in isolation, but then the paragoric comes along to get a good purge going, which allows for writing expert opinions when you're a graduate student. (Ooops, I'm sure I didn't mean to say that.) Geogre 19:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no expert quite as certain as the undergraduate expert. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

My irregularity

A small treat to console you , and keep your strength up you throughout my absence (should it occur) Giacomo

Advertising

Ummm, you do mean to advertise a videogame, complete with a link to WalMart, on your user page? Is this, uh, something you want to do? Geogre 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh... it's pretty discreet, isn't it? I told Link it was all right. Have some of Giano's delicious caviar, Eogregay. I didn't know that stuff came in shoe-polish tins, did you? Bishonen | talk 17:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

So, are you getting a kickback off sales to Wal*Mart, or is this because "It is a very good game and everybody ought to play it?" (to paraphrase my students). What amazes me about the caviar is that it's a laxitive. I never knew it had that property. Geogre 19:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What a way to find out, eh? Like I said, because Link asked. Don't you ever do stuff like that? Also, after the way I advertised Colley Cibber for its day of Main-Page glory at the top of this page, a one-line link of regular size looks so minimal and tasteful I don't even see it. (Fil? See the Cibber banner, you prolly never did. Wear the goggles.) Bishonen | talk 20:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool, if bright. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What a great ad! Should I create one for my Mandan article when it goes up on the 9th? We can keep the stuff about mutilation, it works for them as well. Caviar as a laxative? Well, that just takes the fun out of eating it, then! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Heheh. The handiwork of User:Alkivar. I kept it for exactly the purpose of recycling with other articles, so do use it if you like, Gan. Did you take a look at the code? It turns out that, with so little understanding as I have of these matters, substituting a picture of even slightly different size involves a lot of trial and error, so better not start too late...! Changing text, on the other hand, has to be dead simple. Sometimes I feel "miserable mutilation" will work for far too many articles. ;-) With CC it's an actual quote from the Lead. Looking forward to seeing Mandan up there! Bishonen | talk 23:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Size issues? I can resize the image down to as small as 50px wide and as large as 300px wide and not have issues on my screen. If theres something your trying that just isnt working... all you had to do was ask hun :)  ALKIVAR™ 02:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Alk, I'll bear it in mind for the next time I need for this page to dazzle and delight! Bishonen | talk 02:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Colley Cibber should be the patron saint of miserable mutilation, and his holding up an "Ok" (or, in Italian, an "a*sehole") hand gesture works as well. Geogre 13:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's the very afterlife for our Colley. Bishonen | talk 02:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your input desired

Please take a look at Talk:Jonathan Wild. It's one thing for me to insult my article. It's another for someone else to do so. Geogre 21:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall the German guy having some interesting cultural history that I lacked, which he added in that German way. I can read the French version, and it's almost a literal translation. I'm honored by it, of course, but its being "more professional" bugged me. (I don't read German, so I can't tell how closely he stays to me, but, even if it's the way a pig would, I can read French nouns, at least.) Geogre 01:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I was too mean. Did you see Filiocht's sonnet? I wrote it, it seems. Geogre 19:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh but you did, Dada Geogre. I just clicked some links from your user page, copy and pasted, and selected the order for the 14 lines. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean to committ a poem, I promise! I hadn't the mens rea. Geogre 15:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

But now that you've done it, it doesn't feel so bad, does it? Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's not the problem. The first one is always free. Soon, you find yourself writing a poem just to feel normal again. Geogre 17:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, the fellow did it. The Norwegian Jonathan Wild is a FA in Norsk. Geogre 12:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool! Read the vote here. --Bishonen | talk 13:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so what were the no voters saying? (They sure aren't verbose about it, esp. compared to the .en version.) Geogre 15:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

See, the system is a bit different. They apparently vote about two "grades" simultaneously. Anbefalt means "Recommended articles", which are defined as "spesielt lesverdige, og kan være til inspirasjon for videre artikler": "Specially read-worthy and can inspire your own article-writing." The higher grade is Utmerked, which means Featured, "det ypperste Wikipedia har av artikler", our best. The two votes under Utmerked basically say "No, I think it should be Anbefalt, not Utmerked." Note that those are cast by the first two people on the Anbefalt vote, and that one of them is the translator. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh. Maybe we should have "commendable" articles as well as "featured" articles. I wonder if we could mollify a few of our menaces that way? Geogre 19:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Almost forgot: Thanks honey. :-) (I'm a reactionary foamer, too.) Geogre 19:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks For The Intervention

Thank you again for being there through all of this with potw. Please let me know if there's anything I can do you in the future. karmafist 05:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've got one: stick around! ;-) Bishonen | talk 22:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A Rare RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...

Bish:

Just wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for supporting me in my recent RFA. I see that you don't vote in many RFAs (or, if you do, you don't vote in many where the nominee returns later to offer his/her thanks for your participation), so I'm doubly flattered that you elected to vote in mine. I shall endeavor to live up to your expectations.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 22:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the thank you, Extreme. No, I don't vote that much, but you were so obviously suited, what could I do? Enjoy your new responsibilities: the mop, the bucket, the stun gun! Bishonen | talk 22:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A thank you from Ann

Hello, Bishonen. I'm just dropping you a note to thank you for your support for my RfA. What you said ("dives into the pool of conflict and emerges dry") was definitely the most poetic comment I got! I should have thanked you earlier, but I got a bit caught up with college work. Anyway, although we haven't had any direct contact, I have seen you around, and I've liked what I've seen(!), so I'm looking forward to working with you in the future. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 00:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Darn! I missed her on RFA! Geogre 13:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how you do it, Ann: you discuss with some of the most obstreperous editors, and edit some of the worst cesspits among articles and wiki pages, and come up smelling of roses. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The Buffalo Skull of Diligence

File:Mandan hunter with buffalo skull.JPG

You have been presented with the Buffalo Skull of Diligence for reverting vandalism on Mandan while it was on the Mainpage, December 9, 2005. Thank you for your watchfulness and diligence!

Thanks for your work reverting the vandals on Mandan while it was on the mainpage yesterday! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Restoration blurb-o-mat

Seems easy to me. Wrom:

Restoration literature is the literature written in English during the period commonly referred to as the English Restoration (1660–1689), corresponding with the last years of the direct Stuart reign in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. The following article is designed as an overview, and the reader is advised to consult one of the more specialized articles for further information (see references within the text). Please note that the dates for "Restoration literature" are a matter of convention, and they differ markedly from genre to genre. Thus, the "Restoration" in drama may last until 1700, while in poetry it may last only until 1666 and the annus mirabilis, and in prose it might end in 1688, with the increasing tensions over succession and the corresponding rise in journalism and periodicals. In general, the term "Restoration" is used to denote roughly homogeneous styles of literature that center on a celebration of or reaction to the restored court of Charles II.

Restoration literature includes extremes, for it encloses both Paradise Lost and the Earl of Rochester's Sodom, the high spirited sexual comedy of The Country Wife and the moral wisdom of Pilgrim's Progress. It saw Locke's Treatises on Government, the founding of the Royal Society, the experiments and the holy meditations of Robert Boyle, the hysterical attacks on theaters from Jeremy Collier, and the pioneering of literary criticism from John Dryden and John Dennis. It saw news become a commodity, the essay develop into a periodical artform, the emergence of the stock market, and the beginnings of textual criticism.

We just turn it into:

Restoration literature is the literature written in English during the period commonly referred to as the English Restoration (1660 - 1689), corresponding with the last years of the direct Stuart reign in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. In general, the term is used to denote roughly homogenous styles of literature that center on a celebration of or reaction to the restored court of Charles II. It is a literature that includes extremes, for it encloses both Paradise Lost and the Earl of Rochester's Sodom, the high-spirited sexual comedy of The Country Wife and the moral wisdom of Pilgrim's Progress. It saw Locke's Treatises on Government, the founding of the Royal Society, the experiments and holy meditations of Robert Boyle, the hysterical attacks on theaters from Jeremy Collier, and the pioneering of literary criticism from John Dryden and John Dennis. It saw news become a commodity, the essay develop into a periodical artform, the emergence of the stock market, and the beginnings of textual criticism.

I don't know if that's not long enough, but it seems like an easy blurb. If it's not long enough, one can add in a sentence for each of the major divisions that will follow (in prose... in poetry... in theater...), but the lead attempts to have that already. Geogre 18:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it's long enough. Excellent, what am I saying, I mean, it will be excellent once I perform "major surgery" on it. ;-) Like this: "It saw news become a commodity, the essay develop into a periodical artform, the beginnings of textual criticism, and the emergence of the stock market. (Just to end somewhat climactically, on something the reader has heard of yet is not expecting here.) --Bishonen | talk 19:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The lead at this point is set up that way because of all the hemming and hawing over when it ends. Everyone knows when it begins, but I thought it was fair warning to set up in the lead that it wasn't going to end neatly. If it ends in '89, for example, then everyone writing under Bill & Mary is lost to literary history, as they're not 18th century until 1700 (1701, if we want to be precise). The cuts off a lot of the most interesting poetry and almost all of the interesting prose. Heck, it leaves your year of drama (1695) out in the cold. Geogre 20:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it's done now. It's quite blurbable. Geogre 16:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

she LIVES!!!

Take a look at User:Camillus_McElhinney#Correspondence, and prepare to be aghast, or something. FreplySpang (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonjour Madame Bishonen

Sorry not to have been in touch lately, but I've been so busy with my foreign commitments and fans! I've just sent you an email which you may enjoy dealing with! There is something very strange going on with the server today. I left this message first inexplicably on Bunch of Grapes talk page, which is not even on my watch list, having first hit your name on my list, now I see you even have the same image as him just above - very odd "these things cannot be explained" Au'revoir Giano | talk 12:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) PS: Can you not archive here on the mountainside it take ages to reach the bottom of this page! Giano | talk

Archive, archive, archive, you sing the same old song. I hate archiving my cool page, and nobody else ever complains (because I don't in fact ever let it get very long). Can't you get the peasantry to hand-crank it or something, like a mangle? Your ending up on the wrong page must have been from the Curse of the Buffalo. You have mail, monsieur! Bishonen | talk 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what other people do or do not complain about - I find it very trying to have to wait to get down here - soon I shall stop - Oh yes I will and then you will be sorry, I'm souht after elsewhere I don't have to come here you know. Now I've forgotten what I came for -Oh yes you have an email - it'll soon be quicker to catch a aeroplane and deliver a message personally! Giano | talk 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Situation Normal, All Forked Up

That was hilarious: "No one is more NPOV than I am! No one thinks I'm POV. .... Say, Tony, can you block Dunharris and two other people? They say I'm POV. They're so POV!" And, if that weren't enough, three references to Jimbo sez! Wow. Thaet was gode ful smoak. Geogre 00:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WebComArbComArfArfArf

If you click on This link, you will be taken to the /workshop page. However, you won't see all the arguments in glory. To do that, you'd have to go back to look at a version before Tony began withdrawing stuff, which means back to probably December 8th. Rather than trying to follow the complicated evolution of the withdrawing, refactoring, and restating, you'd be better off just reading the last clean copy before the massive refactoring. There isn't even much point in reading what it says now. Geogre 02:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

He's everywhere — how do we know where to stop? El_C 11:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The best idea is not to start. I am virtually alone among the "Other Parties" in believing that there is so little ambiguity, so little evidence, so little cause, that this thing is going to be a very easy close for the AC and that the fewer words now, the better -- just let them go ahead and say, "There's nothing here" or, better IMO, "Oops." As I said, I'm alone in thinking that, and some people are very ticked at comments made in the course of the prosecution. Geogre 13:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I meant on the revision history; I don't really know what's going and yet to even gglance at it. I remember there was something on the mailing list and afdkeeping an afd, but that's it. Then again, you seem to be saying not to even start ggthat, which I find very persuasive. El_C 13:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you're not alone. I think there's no case to answer, and that the ArbCom should never have taken it on. Sadly, I fear that as they did take it on, they may feel forced to pretend that they were right to do so. I'm also very ticked. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys, help me. I'm in the middle of it now. Geogre keeps telling me it's a lovely little read, just what I need to pick me up against certain RL reversals, and his pride and joy, which, well, I simply must read. *Voice fading* ok, i'm reading it, it's great, Geogre, I like it very much... a model debate, wonderful rhetoric... love the people being ticked part ... Bishonen | talk 13:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Which I find very persuasive! El_C 13:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, this is the last version where most of the debate was present. After that, the really radical cutting started, and particularly Tony's insults began disappearing. Geogre 13:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Geogre is certainly not alone in thinking the case has no merit. Some of us are just less optimistic than he is about the possible outcome. Are "the fewer words now, the better" or are the better words, now the fewer? I honestly don't know which. Paul August ☎ 16:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot even lead the blind, so I wouldn't presume to lead a parade. I can't even lead the cops on a merry chase, nor a horse to water or horticulture. Geogre 16:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Geogre, no matter how much you protest, you do lead, by example and the force majeure of your arguments. Paul August ☎ 18:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dang it! Now I've got to get a creme to stop all this blushing (or blushing). Geogre 22:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I read this There isn't much to say after Filiocht's demonstration; should I be flattered or insulted? Help me out here, people. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I meant that you kicked Tony's logic's rear fully out of the game, so doing more would be kicking a thing when down. Geogre 13:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand. Sorry for being dense. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Drake Hotel

Look your chocolate shop has been edited out! but at least the distinguished, important and may I say beautiful and intelligent patrons still remain! Giano | talk 14:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Swiss chocolate shop gone? That certainly takes away some of the lustre. But, as you say, those patrons are the main thing. Bishonen | talk 17:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Joyeux Noël des fraudeurs du fisc

I can't believe it, I really cant' I spent half an hour this afternoon lovingly translating ( I don't do translations) this "Paggina principali" [47] from the Sicilian Wikipedia (not many people know about this one!) I went to proudly present my wonderful new page (for the delight of you all) and found this Sicilian cart, which has apparently been here since 1st October 2005. However, I do feel strongly we should all be supporting the Sicilian Wikipedia. sadly lack of time, and the minor fact I do not speak it well, means that Geogre, Filiocht,ALoan and Paul August will be studying it over Christmas in order that our best literary contributions can be there in the new year. Well done to Geogre Filiocht and Aloan not many people would sacrifice their Christmas in such a way. I wish, I too could study this interesting subject, but unfortunately I'm entertaining Jimbo, Raul and that nice little Mrs. Bishonen at my "Palazzo Splendido, Caymen Islands" over the joyous festival. Bless you all Giano | talk 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Obsoletu"? What a nerve! I'm sure that's not true. Anyway, as a small tribute to Sicily's culture and wiki, I've tentatively started a Sicilian Christmas article in my userspace, to complement the December 24 Featured article on the Main Page. Please help this humble stub to grow, everybody. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC).

Is it just me, or is today's Main page featured article more than usually semi-literate? Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll only say that I groaned audibly when I saw it. (Why aren't there such idee fixes on male singers and actors, one may wonder.) Geogre 13:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's appalling but we have looked at worse, in fact she's looks very nice indeed to me. The problem is there aint much there (in the text I mean). As an FA it seems to have been passed on 7th September 2005, and the record shows it was unopposed, which means none of us bothered to even look at it! Perhaps we should all try to look beyond the few (in my case very few) pages which really interest us on FA, and put pay once and for all to all this drivel which is being featured. It seems the good pages (in my opinion) get honed to bland perfection on FA, while the dross seeps through uncontested. Right word of wisdom over. Giano | talk 23:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

She's purty. Absolutely no doubt about that. I saw The Village, and I thought she was real purty. Heck, most of the targets of ... interest ... are extremely attractive, and most have a very intriguing look rather than just some grotesque adolescent exaggeration (except for Gwen Stefani: I have no idea at all why people are fixated on her), but I have yet to understand why one researches a object of desire. Not, of course, that there is anything wrong with it. I just don't understand it. I am old and on medication, I guess. Geogre 11:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Do you like Madona I think she's terribly nice, really attractive. I think she's probably a very nice person too. I once drew up alongside her at some traffic lights in London, our eyes actually met, I could tell there was an instant frisson, but of course she has excellent self control and allowed her driver to pull away - but I could see the longing in her eyes even through the tinted glass. I wrote to explain my feelings for her, but I think I must have forgotten to include my address and phone number as she was unable to reply. She really is the most remarkable woman, I think she should be on the front page every day. Giano | talk 12:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Provided all her commas are in the right places. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Giano, I'm so happy to see this frankness, you used to be quite shy about liking gay icons. Be proud, as I'm proud of you! And, Geogre, you may be old etc., but you're very well-informed; is it beneath you to do a little fact-checking on our modest Christmas effort? (And the same to you, ALoan, Paul, all visitors!) Bishonen | talk 12:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. Giano, voodoo has been performed as requested. Bish

I now travel the planet without a soul Giano | talk 21:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Madonna and child are both wonderful, I'm sure. As an avid gazer upon her early "bootleg" nudes (with European underarm hair!) in Penthouse, I must say that I've always been impressed by her physical beauty. That is as far as it goes. I cannot recall anything she has ever caterwauled that I have enjoyed, unless it was a cover song, and those I have always preferred in their original, un-cuted state. Her public antics, her music, and her image leave me cold. I knew a dozen like her in the punkrock days, and they all were fine to look at, but never to speak to or endure the company of. At this point, I prefer the art of her husband and the looks of herself. There have been no beauties of indescribable longing since Audrey Hepburn, that Dutch girl, Charlotte Rampling, and Catherine Deneuve. And, for Bishonen, you know how humorless I am! Geogre 13:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Still harping on that? :-( Very well. If you should change your mind, you know where to find the masterpiece of subtle wit. masterpiece<sarcasm> of subtle <sarcasm> wit <sarcasm>Bishonen | talk 14:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am! I was very impressed by the nudes of Madonna with unshaven armpits, and I'll continue to harp on it until ... well... it was impressive. Geogre 14:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not like our efforts are all that funny! Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, well, I was kind of trying to make the same point. I've gone back and made it a little clearer above. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever qualities they have, they could only be worsened by my additions. Bishonen and I are best of friends, until we work on the same article. Geogre 14:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• She's not a gay icon, and I particuarly liked her in the Evita film, did you know they had to rescore the whole music to suit her particularly beautiful and unusual voice. Giano | talk 15:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

AOL Blocks

Hi Bishonen. You working tonight? Merovingian has blocked me from editing -- we seem to be starting into a new wave of blocks based on that rotating proxy. New administrators seem to go through a phase of trying to punish all AOL users. I left him the note below. Please release me if you can. Thanks. WBardwin 06:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that you have blocked an AOL proxy address -- which randomly rotates among users. AOL users cannot control which number they are assigned, and blocking the number for any length of time is ineffective in fighting vandalism. Please see my user page User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection for a history of adminstrative discussion and action regarding these blocks. They seem to hit me often. Please release your block. Information below. Thank you. WBardwin 06:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Your IP address is 207.200.116.202. Please include this address, along with your username, in any queries you make. Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Merovingian. The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Kkkboi". The reason given for Kkkboi's block is: "vandal/troll".

The dingbat blocked the proxy number for 24 hours. Doesn't wikipedia give new admins any training at all? I'd appreciate if you would intervene for me. Thanks. WBardwin 07:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Sorry to say this happens regardless of the experience of the admin, they've no way of telling whether a name account is AOL. You see the IP address, but they don't. Some day it'll be me or JRM that blocks you, probably. :-( Bishonen | talk 07:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help -- sorry to sound irritated but I feel like a target is on my back these days. Stress high -- and, oddly, I find Wiki a great stress reliever, so what time I have here is more precious to me. Remind me not to get 'Knowledge Seeker' on my bad side -- I didn't appeal to him/her so he/she must have read my notes to "friendly" administrators, like you, and decided to leave me a little note. Best wishes. WBardwin 08:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And at least two "respected administrators" use AOL in one way or another. One uses AOL per se. The other uses Netscape ISP. Netscape ISP is a wholly owned, etc. of AOL. (Hey! What can I say? I'm poor! Netscape only costs $10/month for unlimited hours.) Geogre 11:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Something's missing...

Ah, there, completeness. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And there we go! Bishonen | talk 10:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My big drake

So, there's my drake, all shrunken -- his masculinity threatened by yet another fearful viewer. Have you seen TFD and the debate over the "Maintained" template? Pretty active debate, if you're interested. (What is it with these templates? I want to read articles, not banners!) Geogre 12:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I shrunk your drake because of the space he took up. By no means blame Redwolf24, who had posted him LIKE THIS:

Another big Drake.

An even bigger drake! El_C

(signed) --Bishonen | talk 13:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

He's happier now. The chicks will like him and be attracted to his nest. Geogre 16:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, indeed they will. This is him from a distance. See? He's actually bigger than the swan in Lohengrin, or the flying eagle that Jupiter appeared on in the machine house at Dorset Garden. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand. All that masculinity made you nervous. They call it Leda Syndrome: the fear of large, male water fowl. Geogre 20:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That's it. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sir Francis seems to be well endowed with all the right equipment, to defend that poor "little ducky". Paul August ☎ 14:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Noooo! He sank the Armada using fireships! Think of the number of ducks harmed in that way -- all so he could tell the Spanish ladies that he was hot. Geogre 16:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

RFA

Thank you for supporting my recent bid for adminship, which passed 64-2. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:25, Dec. 17, 2005

VARNING!

• Var försiktig så att ingen kroppsdel eller något husdjur kommer i kläm i mellanrummet vid stativet eller skärmens underdel.
• Se upp så att du inte klämmer fingrarna mellan stället och bildskärmen när du justerar bildskärmens vinkel.
  • Heh-heh-heh: they said "vinkel!" Geogre 14:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What did he just call us? El_C 14:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That one's for you both, Geogre and El; be careful no body part OR PET (husdjur) gets squashed when Geogre assembles his new computer! Oh, my goodness, what's THAT body part doing in there? I said careful! Bishonen | talk 15:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
        • A necromancer's computer? Remember when Sauron was sorta saucy & ringless, the manifestation of his spirit's potency wasn't quite at Dark Lord — rather, a necromancer! Although what or whom he was necromancing remains an open question. El_C 15:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Gosh, I wonder where I can put down this monitor? Fifi! Sit." At this point, I'm viewing my words on that monitor, and none of my body parts are impinged in any way, and all the pages display differently on account of all this new real estate on the display. Geogre 19:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely hilarious: all and sundry must see the "strongly critical editorial" on Wikipedia at The Onion. Now this is the sort of editorial I've been expecting. Geogre 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We can all be thankful that the points of criticism were amply addressed in the intervening year, except, disturbingly, Yankovic's groundbreaking TV work on The Weird Al Show is now summed up in just one paragraph of puff, not even the three present when the critique was crafted. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

My Re-RFA

Thank you for understanding the situation. — Moe ε 16:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

De nada. People are always getting terrifically upset about their own RFA's, over slights that are practically invisible to anybody else, whereas you were subjected to a really bad attack. I hope you pass this time, even though the figures aren't looking so hot at the moment. Bishonen | talk 16:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Kim Bruning

My dear Bishonen: No, I did notice he was blocked; you see, he made the original request for us to mediate down at Conspiracy theory and it doesn't much matter when he replies, it is hardly an urgent matter since I expect the dispute will take a good long time to settle down. All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear request

Hello Bishonen. I know that niceness is not my strong side, so I resort to you. Someone just re-added a picture he himself took to article Kalmar (at the bottom). Could you kindly tell him that one image of that kind is enough? / Fred-Chess 22:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So you thought the well-known Bishonen tactlessness might do it? Well, I agree with you about one castle pic being enough for Kalmar, especially since there are more at Kalmar Castle. I've dropped Brookie a note. Bishonen | talk 01:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooh you tactful lot! I've swapped the picture for one of the bridge - ok? No I'm not from Kalmar - but the UK! Merry Xmas! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 13:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Brookie, looking good! I always liked that bridge. (Now do the caption! ;P) Bishonen | talk 14:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

A cracking bridge - excellent on a cruise ship - altered the caption! Merry Xmas - this is where i Live - Grendon -we've got no bridge - or even water! We're about as far from the sea in the UK as you can get! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 14:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

After a request from Mr Chess - I've uploaded the bridge pic to Commons as well. Have a beer for me! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 14:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Much obliged [swigs], Merry Christmas to you too. Ah, Grendon is gorgeous: the hatchment, the advowson, the squint, the Domesday Book, and the niece of William the Conqueror! Just so! The article does seem rather centered on the church (which I'm sure is a lovely church), to the exclusion of the village itself. Are you sure there isn't a bridge across the brook..? Bishonen | talk 15:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Cultures of the World

Would you consider contributing? Or how about voting for it as collaboration of the week for this new but important article.--Culturesoftheworld 19:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Wikipedia experience more enjoyable.

The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with User:Deeceevoice and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.

I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.

Thank you. Rob Church ^Talk 20:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

SWD316 RFA

I want you to see the comment under the "comments" section I left at My RFA. It partially involves you. — Moe ε 22:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I command you! :) El_C 05:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

As you already know:

Thank you!

I thank you for your support on my recent RFA. Although I did not make admin, I'm very happy you decided to support me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. — Moe ε 05:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

60 minutes of research

<sigh> Ok, I've now spent an hour or so in the lieberry attempting to find some facts. Miraculously, these Baptists actually had a book specifically about 60 Minutes, although one that "exposes" it for liberalism. I found the facts in it and ignored the rest. Also, it turns out that Ambi should know something of it, as there is an Australian spin-off on Channel 9, or at least there was in 1984, when the book I used was written. Am I afraid of old information? Yeah. Will I be careful? Yeah. Do I have some lipstick to put on that pig? I suppose. Geogre 16:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael Snow also worked on it. I'm done, now. It's not perfect, not FA, but not horrendous anymore. I caught some POV that Michael had missed, and I did some sentence wrenching. 'S'Ok. Geogre 18:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Geogre, it's much better than OK. You and your lipstick are awesome. Bishonen | talk 23:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Still needs one big edit. I said I'd do it last night, but then that went the way of all plans. I simply cannot get adequate sleep. Geogre 12:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A move

We could use some help in moving reconstructed pronunciation of ancient Greek back to its original title Ancient Greek phonology. It was moved by Thrax on his own accord after minor revert war and some pointless edits of the redirect link trumped any plans of simple salvage.

Peter ^Isotalo 04:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A beacon of enlightened reason in the murky wikidarkness... Thanks!

Peter ^Isotalo 17:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh. I read that as a bacon of reason. Thanks, you're too kind! Bishonen | talk 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bishonen, thanks for your comments on the outrageous move of Ancient Greek phonology by User:Thrax. Well, now, clearly acting both against consensus (which he has been doing consistently for a long time) and your clear characterization of the previous move as a "stunt", he's done it again. Besides restoring the article to its original title, I suppose we need to open some sort of action against him. What a pain. Any advice you have would be appreciated. --Macrakis 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Macrakis. I have no opinion on the article title, but I can see that Thrax is flouting several principles, and I'm not about to countenance a "You follow the rules, you lose (sucker!)" situation here. The move was being reverted by User:Ανδρέας just as I went look, and I've warned Thrax. Hang on, though; I have a feeling I'd better go back and make the warning more all-encompassing. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thrax now added a subtitle The reconstructed pronunciation of Ancient greek. Andreas 20:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thrax has actually moved the article three times, the third after Andreas had moved it back (Andreas moved it back again). Take a look at: First change Second change. This is no way to write an encyclopedia.... --Macrakis 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thrax started a POV fork named The historical pronunciation of ancient Greek Andreas 20:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...sigh. I'm going to assume good faith there, and leave it to the editors to sort out. Please see my note on both the talkpages for some alternative ways of handling a fork situation. If the user should yet again edit war against consensus, as I have now explicitly warned him not to do, I will certainly consider it disruptive (=I'll block him). But I suppose it doesn't take a chrystal ball to see all the bother (for the consensual editors) of an RFC and perhaps RFAR looming ahead. :-( Bishonen | talk 23:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Greek phonology has been on the RFC list as Ancient Greek pronunciation since Nov. 8 [48] and was removed on Dec. 20. Andreas 00:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter M.

In case you didn't see, I made an attempt to locate all of his actual good edits. I listed them on AN/I. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Good grief, you've done some serious research there! Those seem constructive ok (I clicked on a sample), though some of them are pretty minor. But now put into the other scale all the time and energy and good will taken away from other editors by the trolling edits, and consider what a lot of constructive edits they could have used that wasted time for, and how much happier they would have been doing that kind of work. The "happiness" issue is a big deal IMO: I seriously believe that interaction with... somebody playing these kinds of mindgames comes high on the list of "things that make good editors leave Wikipedia in disgust". Thanks for your work and your message! Bishonen | talk 23:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just think it is important to look at problems from all sides. I just don't want people condemned before all the evidence is presented. But, yes, I'd agree with you that the happiness issue is an important one. But vandals and trolls have been turned around in the past, so I think efforts should be made to try and change their behavior before drastic steps are taken. Don't get me wrong, RfCs and RfArs are necessary in some cases, but we don't unnecessarily need to start RfCs or RfArs before other options are looked at. But in this specific case, PM is probably doing more harm than good, IMO, and you were right when you said that one may need to be filed, sooner rather than later. It's good to see my work appreciated though. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei

Hi Bishonen, after commenting on the frivolous claim on the Administrator's noticeboard by User:Huaiwei, you may be interested in reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Huaiwei. I thank you for your time. enochlau (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

With the RFAR injunctions, the situation is so involved that I hardly know what to say there. I do understand your frustration, but I suspect that User:Monicasdude has it right that the best thing would be to withdraw the RFC and focus instead on whether Huaiwei has violated his probation. (If you believe that he has, I think WP:RFAR under the heading "Requests for clarification" would probably be a good place to post.) Meanwhile, if you do want to go on with the RFC, I've posted a note on its talkpage for you, about evidence and diffs. Good luck! Bishonen | talk 19:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually didn't know there was a section on RFAR on clarifications. I originally brought the matter to the Admin noticeboard but someone said move it to RFC. But I'll discuss with User:Novacatz and see if RFAR is the most appropriate channel. enochlau (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Enochlau, perhaps I should revise my suggestion, now that I've actually found the RFAR in question (it's here). As you can see, Huaiwei's one-year probation means that "any administrator ... may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." If you find that H's editing has disrupted Chinese New Years greetings, I suggest you don't bother with WP:RFAR, but post on WP:ANI asking other admins to take a look, and ban H from the article if they see cause. Naturally, "any admin" doesn't mean you, who're an involved party, and possibly not me either, since H has already managed to attack me on WP:ANI, with an accusation of "bullying" him to further some nefarious geographical conspiracy (a little amusing, that, since I'm in Northern Europe). I don't really agree that criticizing him and being attacked for it disqualifies me, especially since H seems so ready to spray attacks in all directions, but some people are very purist about this. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought, I'd raise it with admins at ANI and let them deal with it, until I got this:

This looks like a user RFC to me. It even follows the same format. This might be an attempt to smear someone without having to follow the certification requirements at WP:RFC. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (now moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Huaiwei/Archive1)

So, the opinion of that administrator was that I was trying to smear Huaiwei via a backdoor by posting this onto ANI. I think he had a valid concern, because due to the posts of other users, my original request that Huaiwei and friends be banned from those pages had ballooned due to continued comments from the others, so it looked like a RfC. Should I dare take it back to ANI? enochlau (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yes! This is what the RFAR tells you to do, so just do it. I think Ryan may have failed to grasp the situation, and the key to that would be his comment "Really, you put just way too much information here, and it's not very well organized. I can hardly tell what is even going on." You need to post very briefly, emphasizing 1) the RFAR probation, and 2) your request for an uninvolved admin to take a look at the pages and form their own opinion about whether a ban would be appropriate. Don't enumerate the disruptions that you see, don't be drawn into arguing with Huaiwei! If he replies (as I expect he will, though he'd be wiser not to) and starts arguing about all sorts of details, just tell him that you have no more to say, as you want to leave uninvolved admins a clear field to make up their own minds, and so should he. Oh, and put a very clear heading, like "Request for uninvolved admin to review possible probation violation" or something.

Your biggest problem is probably that it's such an ungrateful task for an uninvolved admin to take on: they'd have to plow through a lot of bickering on the talk pages, no doubt come in for abuse if they do ban, and finally perform the bureaucratic nightmare that the ArbCom has decreed: posting the ban, in various specified ways, on no less than four different pages. A lot of hoops to jump through. I suppose it might help if you tried to formulate it so as to encourage people to take on one of the pages and review that? Bishonen | talk 00:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The Relapse

I appear to be having a significant relapse. I'm of two minds about the adspam. On the one hand, I think it's fine. On the other hand, there are so many unsigning visitors to my talk page these days, particularly in regard to the evil that policy does, that I'm not sure. Since it's my talk page, I guess that means go ahead. Sure is big and bright, though. ("Henry, with his plights and gripes as bad as Achilles" -- John Berryman, Dreamsong #14.) Geogre 02:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It took me a long time to figure out what it was all about, but hey, thank you !! ;=) The vote should be over on January 9th. Joyeux Noël ! Manchot sanguinaire 17:40, 24 December 2005

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Bishonen/Archive 3! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Season's greetings, Bish, and all the best for the new year. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Bestest year and Merry holidays from moi, Bish! El_C 04:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Purr! Bishonen | talk 19:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

May I add my voice to the throng … and may I also thank you for cleaning up my talk page. —Theo (Talk) 07:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I had to, it was a dreadful mess. Merry Christmas, Theo. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit late, but Happy Holidays! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Prodego/wikistress

No problem, I see you figured it out. ;-) That's why you can revert!(And so you can stop vandals)

Prodego ^talk 15:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use

Bishonen, maybe you'd like to enlighten the people at Hillbilly and especially User:Abelson about what Fair use means, and that an image from the Simpsons is not fair use on an article about Hilbillies. / Fred-Chess 17:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you don't have to respond. I took it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use / Fred-Chess 17:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

A very rude edit summary from Abelson: I wish people wouldn't bring the worst of sv.Wiki manners with them to en. I've commented on Talk:Hillbilly. Bishonen | talk 19:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Daegling in Bigfoot

Daegling himself is not a reputable source.

I find this amusing that a competent researcehr who is "into" this topic from direct field work, cannot quote his own research whereas old farts who never left the house are considered a source.

As for published work, most editors in the outside world of journals will not touch this topic.

Disgusted with Wiki. Losers editing winners.

beckjordBeckjord 19:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. You can use yourself yourself as a source, provided you cite yourself from some reputable publication (be it website, journal, or book). What you cannot do is present your own field work in your own voice in the article. Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. If the outside world of journals will not touch a topic, neither will we. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Query

You then say it is ok to quote a website re something I did?

BTW, how do you ___ever__ expect newbies to understand all this stuff? No wonder you have angry trolls and vandals. They are Mad at Wiki. All these rules and stuff, hard to understand, and hard to learn even where to look.

Also, Wiki (we) really __does__ touch this topic. See Bigfoot.

beckjordBeckjord 19:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I say it's OK to cite a well-reputed website, published by someone accountable and trustworthy. Say a university. By no means is it all right to cite somebody's blog, or a site put up by an anonymous or otherwise unknown individual, or one widely regarded as marginal. I do agree with you that the place is confusing and frustrating for newbies, but as you see, they do learn what they need eventually (most of us were new pretty recently.) Though as for learning ALL this stuff, you'll probably never find an editor who has! People tend to specialize in the wikicorners they're interested in. Naturally, it's easier if you start with something less challenging than editing a controversial page, but I do understand that your great interest is in editing the type of pages that you do, so I suppose that can't be helped. There is another factor: how much you're prepared to listen to other people, and try to learn. If you suspect those other people of not having good intentions in the advice they give, then that's an added difficulty, of course. Still, seriously, clicking on what you rather dismissively call "some link to read" and studying it is a very good wiki study technique. And just generally listening is, too. If you don't mind my reminding you, for instance, did you notice my formatting advice to you on Talk:Bigfoot? About using double equals signs, ==, for headings on Talkpages? See, the single signs that you're using make your headings bigger than everybody else's, and also mess up the headings hierarchy on the page. Take a look at how they're affecting my Table of Contents above, for instance. Getting that kind of thing right is admittedly pretty trivial, but it helps make a good impression on readers. WP:CIVIL is vastly more important, though! Good luck with your wikiefforts. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

More Thrax

Thrax is at it again at Talk:Ancient Greek phonology. Take a look. From his behavior, it seems as though his primary goal is to attract attention, even if that means being blocked. --Macrakis 21:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Vregamoto (translates roughly as 'fuck it!', not an acceptable user name) has two edits to his account:

1. A reply to your block: "Blocking people in order to gain advantage in a content war is against the rules." 2005-12-27 01:26:30 [49]
2. A comment during an earlier block block record: 2005-11-29 23:07:47[50]

If this isn't a sock-puppet.... --Macrakis 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I was just wondering what the name meant (after seeing your comment on the user's talkpage). I'm not sure how to do a username block, but I'll have a shot at it. Is it Greek? Bishonen | talk 02:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. --Macrakis 02:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been confirmed through a Checkuser IP check run by User:Kelly Martin that Vregamoto and Thrax are the same editor. That's the worst behavior from Thrax I've seen so far. :-( I think I'll go change the messages on Vregamoto's pages in the light of this new information. I will also extend Thrax's block. Bishonen | talk 15:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

From my perspective, the sockpuppet avoidance of the block is a very serious technical violation, but not the worst behavior overall. Thrax has been disruptive for months now, but mostly in ways that are not unambiguously forbidden: extremely repetitive Talk discussion, edits against consensus, etc. As the consensus has become stronger, he has taken more and more extreme measures. I don't know if he's just so ideologically driven that he think's he has the 'duty' to do this (from his POV) or if he is just playing a game on WP. But the result is the same -- he wastes huge amounts of time and energy of the cooperative editors, and discourages knowledgeable contributors. --Macrakis 16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for three weeks. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet? User:AskMelegi Andreas 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Thrax' IP is now blocked, the socks aren't coming in from that any more, the way they did at first, but via "furious proxy-surfing", according to Kelly. You figure it: theoretically, CheckUser can no longer furnish absolute proof that these guys all live in Thrax's computer. But User:AskMelegi is either the sock of a user who has shown no conscience about creating them, or else a brand new user suddenly appearing and continuing the discussion where Thrax left off. Via an open proxy. That choice is more than enough for me to put the account on the list, and block it. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet? User:JacobGrimm Andreas 14:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Another sockpuppet? User:HansChristianAnderson Andreas 17:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Sorry I was slow on the uptake there. You guys are welcome to add all future obvious Thrax footwear to the list on Talk:Ancient Greek phonology yourselves if you like, it's hardly worth bothering Kelly for any more CheckUser checks, and you can recognize them as well as I can or better. Though please do keep posting them here for me, too, so I know to block them. At the bottom of this page is better, actually, I'm less likely to miss a message there. Bishonen | talk 02:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy Hanukkah

Bishonen,

You should know the only reason this page is on my watchlist is because it's usually fairly amusing. But lately, sheesh, I dunno — if it's not one content dispute it's another. And then — shudder — the cryptozoologists show up. (Who next, the embezzlers, claiming that only those who have committed the crime have the proper expertise to edit the embezzlement page?) Well that's the final straw. I can hold my tongue no longer. Here: everybody loves pugs. Let the amusement commence. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Pug is welcome, as long as he doesn't scare off Giano's goats, Geogre's drakes, or El C's petting zoo. --Bishonen | talk 23:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

That dog looks like he just ate a duck! Noooo! Now this dog, on the other hand, wouldn't harm a feather, wouldn't muss a fly. Give her rawhide, and she'll contentedly stare at you all day long. Geogre 01:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I will stare at you until you give me a bone.

I don't even think a duck would fit within a pug's maw, how dare you! Your dog, on the other hand, possesses what could only be described as a satanic gleam in its infernal eyes. Either that, or it wants some real meat, enough with the bones and rawhide already. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so I have to feed her a fresh newbie every two weeks, but that's a small sacrifice, and it's a valuable service, for it cleans up delightfully. A rawhide bone to keep the incisors sharp, newbie bones for nutrition. (This is why I never bite a newbie. As August Strindberg said, "Dog owners are cowardly people who haven't got the courage to bite people themselves." (And I wonder now how bad the August Strindberg article is. I hope it's better than, say, Allen Tate.).) Geogre 12:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The nearest thing to a bishpet: this cute computer. Note the view of my 'hood Söder on the screen.

Ok, I've read August Strindberg now, and all I can say is, "Macheath, attack!" It's not as bad as the Allen Tate article, but it's not altogether good, either. It has wiki-itis (late hands qualifying without rephrasing) and lacks a discernible thesis. (Yes, the primary author will no doubt see this and be offended, and for that I'm sorry in advance.) (Actually, I'm just sorry.) Geogre 15:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hellooo, Macheath, who's a good girl? What pic can I post, Geogre? Oh, hey, this pretty little sunflower mac is the nearest thing I've got to a pet. Note the baby loudspeaker on its own leash. Checking out August Strindberg... oh dear... "Sunflower, attack!" There are some extremely dubious assertions, that could certainly do with citing. WHO says Strindberg criticized his contemporary gender roles as unjust? Hard-ly. And he was an anarchist? I don't think so. Guess what? The Swedish version, which was much inferior to this one a year ago, is now much better. It's a Featured article, and looks, from a speedread, to deserve it. Hmm. Maybe I should expand and improve... oh, yeah, Swedish 19th c literature, that's got to be the one thing that would bore an anglophone readership more than Restoration drama. Brilliant. --Bishonen | talk 21:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please do something about Strindberg! This is one of those Swedish topics which should be featured. I'll even help you. The Strindberg article is really among the most incoherent pieces of half-a-sentence-every-second-week-from-any-random-bypasser wiki-editing I have seen on Wikipedia ("College" is possibly worse – that one is a result of the "write about what you know [and don't bother to do any research to put what you know – or think you know – in context]" principle, which makes all academia-related articles around here look like crap). Uppland 05:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's Wiki-itis, alright. Every person just adds a bit she's heard in class, maybe, or what seems to be true based on stuff in the article (e.g. the Anarchist claim; in The Red Room, there are Anarchists-to-be, so someone thinks, "Well, not really a Socialist, so that means an Anarchist" and adds that). There is no "let's read a biography" spirit, because that would need a single, hard core editor, and the article instead has a hundred dilletente editors. These dilletente editors can do wonders, but when there never has been a major writer, the result is Wiki-itis. Geogre 12:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I wonder how anyone can tell that's a statue of him. It doesn't look much like him, at least in terms of physique, and one has to wonder if he posed for it, pee-pee hanging out and all. Geogre 14:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's Strindberg during his little known bodybuilding and gay porn model phase, between the Nietzschean and alchemist periods. Uppland 15:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah... for some reason that reminds me, Tups, didn't you have any material to add on the Scandinavian influence here? As I'm sure you're aware, Strindberg popped the famous would-you-like-to-have-a-baby-with-me-Miss-Bosse question to Harriet Bosse during a Sicilian Christmas sauna session. As far as the Strindberg article, I think I may be a little too busy just now working up Erik Beckjord to Featured status (see below) to bother with minor 19th-c writers from some European backwater, but I suppose I could return to it later. Suggested division of labor to begin with: how about you start inputting the best of the Swedish article, Tups, while I start reading Olof Lagercrantz's book? Bishonen | talk 15:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I notice that there is no mention of the Nordic yule goats brought by the Norman King Roger I to Sicily. Anyway, I'm also reading Lagercrantz, but I think Martin Lamm's biography is still considered authoritative. The paperback edition of Lagercrantz I have lacks footnotes or references. I suppose the Nordisk familjebok article can first be mined for a biographical outline. Uppland 13:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord

When I say nobody ever gives answers, etc, it means few people tell you how things work, instead of just sending some link to read.

FYI, I am getting several messages that other people find DreamGuy to be a **** as I do.I see no reason to be civil to someone who will not discuss issues, and who acts with great arrogance.

BTW, I like your images. I assume you are Japanese?

beckjordBeckjord 18:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. No, I'm not Japanese, and actually not a pretty youth either. What you say about refusing to be civil to somebody you find arrogant is highly un-wiki. You have to be civil to everybody in this place! I'm sorry, but I will again merely post a link that explains it: Wikipedia:Etiquette. I do think you expect rather a lot, if you think other editors have to take the time to pre-digest and summarize the policy pages for you, rather than you clicking on them and reading them for yourself. (They have been written as clearly and concisely as possible.) I do appreciate that you're very busy, but so am I, and most editors here. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 19:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

beckjord

I don't really want to get involved in this entire mess, (I'm a neutral observer who wants to keep his anonymity). See [51] for Beckjord's threat. --68.161.181.139 01:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Bishonen | talk 01:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I do humbly apologise for all of this mess. User:Beckjord has been insulted ever since he came to Wikipedia, thus explains why he is acting this way. In spite of what is listed on the Bigfoot sites, in which people 'will' shoot at this thing, even has actually shot at this thing, User:Dreamguy and company says that this is "silly", is in violation of WP:NOR, and removed this material. thus I may suspect that User:Beckjord may have a point about some Wikis. Stand by for more........

And, again, I do regret the actions I have taken, and do humbly apologise for the inconviences. Martial Law 01:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Beckjord

User Beckjord believes that he has new info. regarding the Bigfoot article, only that he gets reverted by User:Dreamguy and allies, and he easily loses his temper, thus you have your revert wars. Martial Law 01:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've found, on the Bigfoot Discussion page statements that User:Dreamguy has made that could be considerd insulting. See User:Dreamguy's contribs as well. Martial Law 01:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept your apology, of course (not that *I* needed one!) I have to say I haven't seen any comment by DreamGuy about Beckjord that's remotely as aggressive and insulting as the way Beckjord routinely refers to DreamGuy. Perhaps you have some specific diffs to share? Btw, there may be more revert wars now, considering Beckjord's intemperate call for his supporters to come in and do battle on Bigfoot. Compare my notice on the administrator's noticeboard. Bishonen | talk 02:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

How YOU can edit the Bigfoot article at WIKIPEDIA.ORG --VilaWolf

Thanks, VilaWolf. I kind of assumed that you were the anon you can see supplying the link above, that's why I avoided giving you any credit for your whistleblowing in my WP:ANI post. Would you like me to go back and cover you in glory? :-) Bishonen | talk 02:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I also sincerely and humbly apologise to Wikipedia for any and all inconviences. Martial Law 03:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

NOT going for it

I am NOT responding to User:Beckjord's campaign at all. Martial Law 02:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk page:

Would it be possible for me to remove the latest post from User:Beckjord from my talk page, old data w/o being penalized ? Martial Law 03:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I don't see any very recent post from him... do you mean from several days ago? Anyway, there's no question of any sanctions for removing posts from your own talkpage (not even if you should remove warnings and criticisms, although people would think that a less than frank and open thing to do). The way I see it, in this case it's purely a courtesy issue between yourself and Beckjord. You know, I'm getting the feeling you're letting this thing worry you more than it deserves to. Do what you want, take a deep breath, you're not responsible for the whole mess. Bishonen | talk 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Martial Law 03:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You, a Admin. ? Congrats. Martial Law 03:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

VMORO and Bulgarian

An editor by the name of user:VMORO is stubbornly trying to delete additions to Bulgarian language that he doesn't personally agree with. He's even removing the reference to the IPA handbook itself and he's not discussing the issue. Think you could join in the fray with some enlightened comments?

Peter ^Isotalo 04:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

! I hope you're kidding. Remember what your last little request expanded to? I'll take a look tomorrow, but you need to internalize the fact that I have no idea of phonetics, the basic terminology, the well-known systems. It's all Ancient Greek to me. Bishonen | talk 04:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Just duck out if it starts getting complicated... The issue here is just that VMORO refuses to recognize the IPA handbook chart because it has two allophones in it (besides the six recognized phonemes). I don't think he's actually reading any of the explanatory paragraphs, though. It's more an issue of not removing valid references than the detailes of phonetics. Essentially, I don't there's any difference between what VMORO and I are claiming, except that he doesn't seem to know about the allophones and therefor assumes that it's all wrong.

Mind you, he has not attempted to engage in discussion and he seems to be a very avid reverter in general.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've watchlisted it, and will definitely block if he calls me "honey". Bishonen | talk 00:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont't think VMORO really got your warning. Have a look at this diff. I posted a final request to get him to talk about it at his talkpage

Peter ^Isotalo 04:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't look like he did, does it? Let's see if my block gets his attention. Bishonen | talk 04:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. He removed the vowel chart once more, but actually added a reference of his own this time. Still no motivation as to why the one from the IPA handbook is "wrong", though. And he's still revert warring Bulgarian vocabulary, which he for some reason refuses to move from Bulgarian lexis and is cut 'n' paste-moving it. He's also constantly reverting my attempts to bring Macedonian (disambiguation) up to standard by removing the pointless TOC, links to Macedonia (region) and Republic of Macedonia and other non-disambiguated links.

He obviously knows about policies, standards and that discussion is required, but he just doesn't seem to be bothered by any onus to abide by any of it.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

War called off

Go to User:Beckjord's Talk page. Am still watching. Will need Admin help. Martial Law 06:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You need admin help with what? Beckjord has been blocked for 48 hours by El C, specifically for this post. As you probably saw at WP:ANI (I note you have posted there), people are starting to question whether we should keep a guy like that around at all. As far as I'm concerned, Beckjord has worn out all the newbie tolerance and helpful advice (that he never listens to anyway) that people have been extending to him. There's no special, obscure Wikipedia technique that he needs to master in order to simply not insult people. All it takes is a smidgeon of common sense and common courtesy. He's been getting away with murder long enough, and his edit to the userpage of El C, of all people—a highly respected administrator who has been patient with him—was crass idiocy. I'd rather not have anything more to do with Beckjord after that. I might do a bit of a rewrite of Erik Beckjord, though—I suppose you'll agree its present state isn't exactly encyclopedic. --Bishonen | talk 15:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

...brain... asploding... [52] ... send... help... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't panic, whitecoats on the way. Secret code cracked. WAFE password: MALCONTENT. Bishonen | talk 20:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Independent School League

Kindly restore the Independent School League (Washington, DC Area) page to its former state. Thank you. Powerco

You are correct. Thanks for fixing this page. It turns out there are three Independent School Leagues in the United States. Each exists without the knowledge of the others. See ISL.

What I am trying to do is allow all three to exist in Wikipedia. Thank you

OK... so, you mean it's all right the way it is, with the page at Independent School League (Washington, D.C.)? If not, I can easily move it back. Bishonen | talk 00:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, please include the area. The Washington DC area includes prep schools in Northern Virginia, Maryland, and the District.

Done. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Iota phi theta/Iota Phi Theta

Bishonen, unfortunately when you edited the name of Iota phi theta to Iota Phi Theta, you deleted a different article about a group with the same name but a different organization. Iota phi theta was a local service fraternity started at John Carroll Univ. as the article states, however, when you capitalized the "p" and the "t" you erased the article about Iota Phi Theta Fraternity, Inc. (unfortunately another user had changed it's name to Iota Phi Theta instead of the original Iota Phi Theta Fraternity, Inc. which left the article open to something like this happening).

Is there anyway to revert the article so that the name of Iota Phi Theta Fraternity, Inc. can be changed back so that this won't happen again or is the article lost? Suntzu1963 13:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Slogan

"The Pathetic Fallacy wants you!" Just came up with that. Geogre 19:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Materials for making nengajo for Japanese New Yea

Happy New Year!—Theo (Talk) 00:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC) PS Nice fireworks!

Shinen Akimashite Omedeto Gozaimasu! Paul August ☎ 06:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm... OK, sensei! Darn it, I should have said Omedetou Kurisumasu while I had the chance, it's the only remotely seasonal "Japanese" I know. Would you like an .ogg of Sailor Moon singing it? :-) Bishonen | talk 14:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Gott nytt år, Bish! Uppland 07:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

God fortsättning, Tups! Bishonen | talk 14:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Felix novo annum? (I got a hammer, and I hammer in the morning/ I hammer in the evening/ All over this site.) Geogre 13:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so do I! See my Moljnar. :-) Oh, right, I see you already did. Hey, Geogre, I may be a little late calling you tonight (=this afternoon); I'd forgotten today's the day I go out for sushi with the gurls. Not much later, though. Bishonen | talk 13:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC).

Where is the edit button (really, I seem to be having difficulties locating it!)? How do I quote? By which I mean, happy new year! El_C 14:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Found it! Wow. Now only to ensure my ascent into madness inflicts maximum damage... El_C 14:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You too, all the best for 2006! Just keep in mind that the blue words are links already[53], and you'll be fine! Bishonen | talk 14:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Blue! Wow, that has become one sectiony talk page! And I thought mine was bad (esp. now with my stupid anti-archive vow)! El_C 14:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem on the time. I'm thinking of going off to lunch and taking my girlfriend with me, just so she can't say that I never take her anywhere. (The difference between Iraq and Vietnam? Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.) Anyway, I have nothing for or against Hollowinnermariolink, but when you lie about it, you're pretty much not an admin. To me, that carries a much longer shelf life than saying "fuck you" to a vandal (as happened with Lucky or Duncharris). Forget my looking at bigfoot, though. I have big enough feet. Geogre 15:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser request

Could you make a sock check on User:Hollow Wilerding, User:Winnermario (see Mel Etitis' suspicions) and User:DrippingInk (see Bunchofgrapes' comments)? I don't have a strong opinion about the puppetry, but please note that if DrippingInk and Winnermario are her socks, they're abusive all right. They always vote to support Hollow Wilerding's FACs, and jump in to scold those who oppose. The affair is highlighted at Hollow Wilerding's prematurely delisted but very interesting RFA. Bishonen | talk 13:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

Positive match: these three users are, without any question, the same editor (or, possibly, two or more people sharing the same connection, but I doubt that). Feel free to block based on attempt to use sockpuppets to stack opinion on FAC. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Request help on Bigfoot edit

Please view my edit and see if you approve.

Thanks, Bishojo.

beckjordBeckjord 07:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to take a look later. Bishonen | talk 14:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice

I would appreciate it if you no longer communicated with me. Holding a grudge against other users on Wikipedia is nothing to be proud of (not that I'm saying you're proud of it), but now that you know User:DrippingInk, User:Winnermario and myself, User:Hollow Wilerding all share the same computer, please do not bother me anymore. I will ensure that they no longer vote on any FACs I nominate, though I find this unfair, considering we are not the same people. But just so that it doesn't cause anymore controversy, I will make sure of it. Also, I will let you know that I do plan on running for RfA again one day (not anytime soon). Don't hold this case back on me when that time comes, because it isn't my fault. Remember to assume good faith, which I want to believe in with you yourself. For the time being, at least until the situation clears, could you refrain from speaking to me for a little while? If you need me though (which I highly doubt), you can find me editing where I usually edit. Thanks for reading this bothersome notice. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing: You didn't say that you shared a computer. You said that you didn't know one of them and that the other was across the street. If you go up for RFA again, I know that I'll bring that up. It isn't the sockpuppets but the dishonesty about it. That's pretty much trolling. Compared to just telling the truth from the start, this hurts more and accomplishes less. Geogre 15:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. As it appears on User talk:Geogre, it appears as though User:Bishonen was informing a handful of Wikipedians that I was up for adminship, sporting a header "Remember Hollaback Girl?" I suppose this tells me that he does still hold a grudge against me from this situation. Oh well. My loss, but not my life. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen is a friend of mine, as you can see. We were both appalled at the "Lola" comments on FAC. In the past I've voted against RFA's on people who showed inappropriate temperament on FAC or other places. Hence, as I rarely look into RFA, she knew that I'd be interested. I was. My vote there was in keeping with my previous habit. Regardless of why you were deceptive, being deceptive has ruined your credibility. If you deceive three times, few will believe you on the fourth time. More to the point, if you believed that you had to, you must either have had real life issues that prevented honest editing or misunderstood the site. Your comment that the whole site has been organized against you from the first day testifies to the latter. Honestly, there are few people watching carefully enough to hold a grudge. There are far too many people on the site for that kind of thing. Geogre 16:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how many people have told me that... when the next RfA comes around, you can question me in whatever way you want. That doesn't change the facts that I've provided at the administrator's board. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hollow Wilerding, I'm going to assume that your talk of "bothering" you and "holding a grudge" is your way of thanking me for placing a link on your talkpage to the WP:ANI thread so that you could respond there. Don't mention it. I'll only communicate with you again if I should need again, for courtesy, to give you information that you need. (Edit conflict:) Oh, it appears that I informed "a handful of Wikipedians", does it? Are you unfamiliar with the use of the "Contributions" button (lefthand column on all userpages)? Please use mine before flinging about any more wild accusations, and it'll show you how many people I informed of your RFA (was it a secret..?) namely one: Geogre. It's true that he can be a handful sometimes. Please don't post on my page again. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Following this message, which will be my last as per your wishes, I would also appreciate it if you never posted on my user talk page again. Also, please leave User:DrippingInk alone, and please respond to the thread. You have been a burden to me, and I believe this is where it should end. Continue editing Wikipedia, and have a good life. Goodbye. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Socks vs. vote-spamming during FACs

Oy ve. I just noticed this. As an administrator, do you know if spamming user pages for votes is comparable to sockpuppetry during FAC votes? Which is the worst abuse of the FAC process? Is FAC vote-spamming also a blockable offense? This has nothing to do with HW; it is just a question I've had. Thank you. Saravask 05:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hi there, Saravask. There's no comparison. To spam talkpages is merely mildly frowned on, see this guideline. My personal opinion, shared by many, is that seasoned users with self-respect don't do it; but it's by no means a blocking or even scolding offense. More of a social faux pas, which, in the case of a newbie, should be pointed out very gently.

Sockpuppets, as such, are allowed, as long as they're well behaved. But abusive socks, i. e. secondary accounts used for deception, votestacking, creating an illusion of greater support, constitute a major and blockable violation. Well, just as common sense dictates. Few people are inclined to excuse even the greenest newbie for doing something like that. See the official policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Hope this helps. Did you want to throw the book at some talkpage spammer? Can't do that if it's got sharp edges, sorry. ;-)

The WP:ANI thread you link to is now a novel to read. :-(. I doubt I'll contribute any more. I've said my say, and have had my carefully argued block of HW's multiuser account unblocked without discussion by another admin, so right now I feel somebody else can look after this problem user and good luck to them. (Incidentally, SlimVirgin reblocked shortly afterwards, which isn't mentioned on WP:ANI.) --Bishonen | talk 12:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, it's all about deception. Deceiving voters is blockable. Just calling on friends is irrelevant, especially if the friends are clueless. It only takes one substantial set of objections, after all, and it's easy to object to nearly any article. When a number of previously unheard of voters show up at FAC, a great many folks start looking for flaws to object to. That's a different class of offense from lying, and I disagree with the page on sockpuppets: I think they should all be blocked, without exception, that there is no excuse for them whatever. I'm kind of Catonian, though. Geogre 13:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I regret having suggested that HW might be brave for behavior that now I understand as railroading the community (hey, I was very new at FAC back then, and still am now). Hang in there — all your comments and actions are, as shown by the broad community consensus, most certainly called for here. Saravask 18:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Death in Venice

Good news! I have returned. Life is back to normal. I don't suppose you would like to have a look at my sensitive and poignant portrayal of a true love story here [54] you will cry, you will weep, and laugh at this beautiful story, not since the days a of "Aberlard and whatsername" have I read such beauty in prose - where can you help? - you ask - just a little copyedit, and find some pictures, I'm going to ask Fil if he ever returns to caption a foto of Venice with the bit from The Cantos about her - I don't have time to read the whole flaming poem to find it, he will know where it is. I am now composing myself for the death scene, and the funereal gondela crossing the silenly lapping waters of the lagoon, as Venetians gently weep, and a hidden orchestra plays that Mahler bit from death in Venice - Oh weepy weepy. Happy new Year! Giano | talk 12:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentiment

Well, someone rushed in where angels feared to tread and wrote Sentimental novel. Is this a good thing? Well, we have had our chances for over a year. It's fairly rudimentary, but it exists, so links have all turned blue. Geogre 23:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been filed against you: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen. DO NOT block the endorser of the RfC. Siblings WC 02:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Although it was not you who blocked the Siblings WC account, I would consider you look back at what you have done these past three days: you assumed, did not allow input of the three users, and because of you, it doesn't look like they're going to be capable of editing here anymore. All because of you, and yet you did not even know if they were sock puppets or separate accounts. This yeilds the fact that you've over-abused your sysop powers, and have hurt the editing privileges of three innocent Wikipedians. This displays poor use and function of your controls, and sets a terrible example for Wikipedia. It was not DrippingInk, Winnermario, or Hollow Wilerding who created all of the issues and controversey. Not them. It was you. Had you not interfered with their editing accounts, I'm sure the three of them would still be happy and not miserable like what you've demonstrated. As you may have noticed, an RfC has been filed against you and some users have endorsed it; maybe this will finally make you realize that everything you did to these three Wikipedians was indeed in bad faith. Though I am against sysops having their powers stripped of them, yours should be disabled for a day or two for your actions. Next time before you block for assuming sock puppetry, locate the evidence, which you simply ignored. Isn't that what an encyclopedia, furthermore Wikipedia is all about? Citing references and sources. Evidence in this case too. You failed to communicate that. I think you should apologize to the three users. 64.231.155.175 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I suppose I'll be blocked now. 64.231.155.175 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. And didn't you say you had posted on my page for the last time? But then you've said so many things. Any further posts from you will be deleted on sight. Bishonen | talk 03:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Grr... Too wonderful...

Don't be like that, eh?

We often kick people when they are down, or acting stupid *cough* Brandt *cough* and it's not nice. It's understandable but it's not nice.

And if you want a full accounting of my incivility, I'll direct you to a couple of admins who I'm sure have extensive lists.

brenneman^(t)(c) 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hollow

What is going on with HW is a perfect example of poor handling of a situation. I don't pin all the blame on you, because HW has been very melodramatic and hostile, but surely you recognize that there was no good reason for this have come out the way it has. Don't you think she's a good editor? No one can deny such excellent content contributions, suspicions of sockpuppeting or not. An admin has to be able to think, when taking action in a case like this, what is best for the project? Majora's Mask needed to go to a revote, and all the suspected accounts needed to be lumped together as one for any future voting purposes, but that was all that needed to be done. We don't do away with good editors just because they get on our nerves. Somebody has got to remain to write articles. Everyking 07:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask, no, I don't think she's a good editor. (Heck, I rather doubt she's even a she.) I think this may be a student of the real Courtni Wilerding, 24, English teacher in Toronto; I cannot believe an English teacher wrote the post above, which is neither better nor worse than her usual article style. Look at it, James. "I would consider you look back"? "This yeilds the fact that you've over-abused your sysop powers"? "Miserable like what you've demonstrated"? "You failed to communicate that"? A teacher? Heck, I can barely believe she's a native speaker. I looked at her articles when they were on FAC, and, no, I don't think their style was noticeably better than how she writes on my page; it certainly wasn't when she put in a new edit, before somebody else got to "copyedit" it. It wasn't just a matter of grammar and vocabulary, either, but the structure was bad on every level--inexpressive, unclear, illogical. I was all set to help out, I often do on FAC, and pre-FAC, even with articles where the content isn't interesting to me. (I just copyedited Bulbasaur a few days ago, on request.) But the way she spat at any criticism put me completely off the idea of trying to work with her. As for somebody needing to remaining to write articles, I think HW is exactly the kind of problem editor that's likely to make others—good contributors—leave the project in frustration.

That's for your direct question. I'm sorry you think I handled the situation poorly.I don't agree, though. Bishonen | talk 08:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I won't make any guesses about the identity or sex of the user or anything like that. Normally I figure it's best to just take people at their word, unless they're somehow doing harm by assuming an identity. She could just be an elementary school English teacher, anyway, or maybe she just isn't a stickler about her English when she's not at work. I'm not too worried about any of that. My basic point is that Hollow (and Winnermario, claimed to be her predecessor account) has added a great deal of content to Wikipedia, got one article indisputably up to FA status (Cool) and raised several others to very high levels of quality. And she was working at an impressively fast pace, too, I should note. And I'm not at all convinced by the "driving other editors away" logic. You could justify a lot with that argument, if you wanted to. I don't know who these saintly editors are, impeccably polite and thin-skinned but as hard working as Hollow, that she is keeping at bay. I think you take what you can get, more or less. If somebody's doing good work, you want to keep them around, even if there are some personality issues. Everyking 08:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

James, do you have diffs for any of these great edits? I looked for some good editing during her RfA but couldn't find any. The edits she made to the FA were all minor (so far as I can see, but I haven't checked every single one), including edits like "Cool peaked within the top twenty ... on the ... charts on which it charted ..." [55] Her work that I have seen was not good and her behavior was appalling. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression she pretty much wrote those articles on the Gwen singles. If she was just making minor edits, who was doing the major work? Maybe she was just adding a bit at the time, instead of adding big chunks all at once. That's quite common. Everyking 08:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What bothers me is the lying. I didn't read 'her' FA's, as I'm no fan of pop song articles under the best of circumstances (you may recall that I didn't agree with an article on "Hard Day's Night," much less an FA on a pop song). Since I don't agree with the inclusion of pop song articles, I certainly wasn't going to vote on FAC's on pop songs, but we can't assume good faith when someone demonstrates, and very clearly, that his intention is to deceive and to get his way in spite of the community's point of view. That is abuse. I feel the same way when it's an admin going around procedure and when it's a sock puppet and when it's a "Oh, that wasn't me: my cousin got my password and used my computer" and when it's a block evasion. The quality of the person's contributions is irrelevant, because lying and abuse and childish demands to get one's way is too high a price to pay for any edits of any quality. There are tens of thousands of editors out there who can write coherent English about pop culture, but this one user is going to sap our time and energy trying to find out what is true and what a reflection? No. Geogre 13:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfair block

I think the block you put on User:VMORO was unfair. Despite your personal content disputes (in which I take no position), he didn't violate neither 3RR nor any other rule that should get him blocked. You accuse him for ignoring your warning, as if it was part of WP:RULES. His edit summaries were not the most civil on earth, but they still wouldn't be classified under 'excessive personal attacks', I've known much worse that goes unnoticed [56]. Finally you indirectly warn him not to edit that article again, or you'll have him blocked with no prior warning. Due all the respect but you have no right to do such thing. Miskin

Hollow, Winnermario equal suckpuppets?

According to Hollow, she, Winnermario and her brother, use the same computer. They all have their personal Wiki accounts. You say they are suckpuppets because all of their accounts lead to the same IP, but if what they say is true, then they are no suckpuppets. Is that correct? My question: is it against Wiki policy for people to use the same computer and use their own personal Wiki accounts, as Hollow claimed to do? Someone else who might be using Wiki, could log into their account from my computer and start editing. Could you then accuse us for being suckpuppets? What if someone edits from a public computer, such as one from a library, where others might have used it to access their Wiki account?

Well, I'm really not asking for your personal opinion, but for the Wiki policy. You don't seem to have any concrete evidence that they are suckpuppets, other than their IP being the same - which, in my opinion, is not evidence enough. It can only work as a lead. I also disagree with you when you said that she's not a good editor. In my opinion, anyone who contributes with info, is doing good; and all who do good, are good. --Anittas 15:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Anittas, I'm a little tired of going on and on about these issues, so I won't post any elaborate discussion at this time. I think I've made my position clear on WP:ANI. For the policy issues you mention, please see also Kelly Martin's Outside View at Requests for comment/Bishonen. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Winnermario and Hollow Wilerding share the same writing style and contribute to the same set of articles. What's more, it you check their histories, Hollow Wilerding was created and immediately started editing like wildfire the very same day Winnermario stopped: Nov 5, 2005. What else happened Nov 5, 2005? Winnermario was blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Does this additional evidence sway you that Winnermario and Hollow Wilerding are sockpuppets?

DrippingInk is a more circumstantial case, since they don't have that telltale one-stops-and-the-other-starts moment. But they do have a similar style and similar interests, and when we have 2 of 3 accounts on the computer sockpuppeting, and lying, and screaming, it's not much of a stretch to call it.

Policy-wise, people sharing a computer is allowed, but once a circumstantial case is made that they are sockpuppets (or meat puppets), the checkuser can clinch it. The circumstantial case must come first in nearly every case, as I understand it. See Kelly Martin's comments in Bishonen's RFC, if you havent. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bish, could you take a look at

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rbj and possibly add a comment, if you feel so inclined? r b-j 16:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

DrippingInk, Hollow Wilerding, Winnermario: appropriate block

Hello. I have just registered an account on Wikipedia. I was searching for an administrator to help me become familiar with Wikipedia, and stumbled upon you, Bishonen. In regard to the blocks of DrippingInk, Hollow Wilerding, and Winnermario, I must make it clear that the operators of these accounts was... questionable. You see, I was introduced merely yesterday (January 2, 2006) to Wikipedia. The woman known as Hollow Wilerding presented me with her computer as a late Christmas gift as she is ordering a new computer. It might be in your personal interest to know that these three accounts have not been operated by three separate people; these accounts have been operated by two people. William Wilerding owned the DrippingInk account, while Mariah Wilerding owned the Winnermario account, and the reincarnation of Hollow Wilerding. Blocking these users was certainly the best decision that any administrator could make — they are deceitful people with terrible attitudes. Also, they are very clueless when it comes to English, which is a shame considering Mariah is an English teacher. I, Cruz Nelson, served as an English student of Mariah's from 2004–2005. I must admit that it was like living in hell; I have no idea how she was capable of receiving her graduate diploma. All in all, I have come to announce that she literally gave me her computer in an attempt to return to Wikipedia under a new IP address. Although some of their contributions, namely Cool (song) were generous and positive, overall these two siblings are not going to go far in life. Please understand what I am saying.

I must place emphasis on the fact that I, Cruz Nelson, am now operating the computer of a former Wikipedian Hollow Wilerding. The IP address, or from what I was explained to by Mariah, will be very identical. I would like to take this time to come out in the open, unlike Mariah and William, and announce that this computer is being operated by one user, and one user only. If I am having issues with anything related to Wikipedia, I will contact you Bishonen. Thank you for listening and good afternoon. –Cruz AFade ^{(Speak about it} | ^{How many?)} 17:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wow! this page is better than TV Giano | talk 17:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I've applied the obvious block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time for this right now (at work). Could someone else review this and (probably) block new sock Cruz_Along (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet! I am a neighbour of hers and wish to work on some articles. Please let me be and if you do, you'll realize that I'm not a sock puppet. I do have an interest in Gwen Stefani, but I will stray from those articles for a long period of time just to prove to you that I am not what you are assuming and accusing me of. –Cruz Along ^{(Speak about it | How many?)} 18:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

HW has a new sock of her own, Empty_Wallow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If this weren't ridiculous before, it definitely is now. --keepsleeping sleeper cell 19:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I may not be the brightest penny in the IT network administrator tray, but the computer doesn't carry the IP address, last time I checked. The ISP allocates the IP address, in the case of static IP's, and it's going to give a new IP address to a new account holder (at the ISP). The only way it's going to be the same IP is if it's the same telco address/provider address (provider account). A dynamic IP is going to be...dynamic. No one can see what computer you're using (unless they're also virus writers and plant trojans and things like that), so no one cares. Congratulations on the free computer, but there really shouldn't be an issue, unless you have the same IP. Geogre 19:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I knew a boy at school whose name was Willard - is that any help? Giano | talk 20:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A sock puppet of myself? Every single other account Cruz and I edited under are blocked. We cannot access them anymore. Therefore, this account is not a sock puppet because there are no other accounts that we possess entry to. The administrators had better start learning the difference between the words "main account" and "sock puppet". This is my main account and Cruz no longer edits on Wikipedia. That means I am not a sock puppet of myself. So, since we did not do anything wrong on Wikipedia, we are obligied to edit whenever we feel like. A surprise is in store for you people, actually — a good surprise. Kind of insane of me considering you are demanding that I never return to Wikipedia. But hey, I'm the only one assuming good faith here. I will post your surprises on your user talk pages shortly. —Empty Wallow | Wollaw Ytpme 20:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yawn

Yawn. You guys, Bunch, Giano, Geogre, etc, would you please just delete posts from obvious HW footwear on sight if you catch sight of them on my page? Don't waste time replying. Now that you've already mixed these absurdities with your thoughtful observations (I'm referring to Giano), which I would by no means remove, it's not so easy to just clean up the page anymore. It gets long. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

Unreasonable block

You have blocked me for 3R simply because I lost my temper with the crap from Greek nationalists. The Balkans pages generally are a disgrace, with lies and propaganda everywhere. It is only a matter of time before Wikipedia is sued for its pretence of providing accurate data while openly allowing manipulation of the information on it. I have tried being polite and it gets nowhere because these people are disgusting little racist nationalists: they have no interest in the truth and are manipulating you and others.--87.202.24.206 21:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? I'm not sure I've ever blocked anybody for 3RR. Certainly not in the past few months. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

Aha, I see, you're the same as 87.202.25.88. I've never blocked you for any reason. User:Izehar blocked you, see History. I merely placed a warning on the 87.202.25.88 page, which you chose to ignore. I suggest you register a name account and edit on the same conditions as other users. Or are you already Martin Baldwin-Edwards, choosing to IP-hop anonymously in order to game the 3RR? I just placed this note on Talk:Greeks to try to counteract the unfair advantage that gives you over those that play by the rules. Bishonen | talk 06:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

110% support!

I can't believe that someone would file an RfC against you. It's totally out of line and the responsible parties should be blocked for trolling. You have my unwavering and total support. - Lucky 6.9 23:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lucky! There are some nice cupcakes on the page, please help yourself (and yes, I'll take the whipped cream, please). Er, Hollow Wilerding already IS blocked. I hardly think an RFC created by a blocked user has any legitimacy, it should prolly be speedied, but I kind of hope nobody does. :-) User:Search4Lancer, who aided and abetted her by endorsing the RFC, fully knowing she was blocked, is trolling, I agree. Please see my WP:ANI note on him here. I'm a little disappointed that that one dropped like a stone: I would have thought the principle was of some interest, but nobody has commented at all. :-/ Bishonen | talk 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In the name of common decency, I suggest that if you have anything to say about me, you say it to me, rather than talking about me behind my back. Search4Lancer 00:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Your interest in common decency is rather unexpected. I'd rather speak to you on WP:ANI, and I have done. Bishonen | talk 01:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, so can I have some shrubbery now? El_C 23:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You want a shrubbery, but a NICE one? Of course! Bishonen | talk 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and some elderberries would'nt hurt. El_C 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, it dropped like a stone because all of this is supposed to be taken care of. For her boyfriend/neighbor/husband/brother being naive about IP addresses, "she" sure seems to be able to get new dynamic IP's quickly. This is three new accounts to evade a block. All of this, and risking an actual ban (which is not the same) just because "she" can't accept the time away from the project that the overwhelming number of users has suggested. Sheesh. The way forward has always been open: take the block, leave Wikipedia for a week, and then see what can be done. Ask people, rather than tell them. Be polite rather than demanding. Accept the verdict of the community rather than trying to throw stinkbombs at it. Geogre 02:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... nice but dull, and increasingly not the wiki-way, it seems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I would do it, too. But there will be a cost involved (yes, another shrubbery!). El_C 00:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You do know that you have one of the most interesting talk pages in all of Wikipedia, and if we delete the crap, our laughs will end... Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 00:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to find out just how many people have this talk page watched. Damn, Bish, you have a fan club, or at least your talk page does. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Her talk page is only as good as the last poster. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, don't have this page watchlisted. I just don't have anywhere else to go until the libraries reopen and I get my hands on the DNB. (And then watch out: I will do John Cleland over again, although I doubt that I'll be able to get my hands on a scholarly edition of that book that he wrote, what with where I am and all and the interests of publishers to keep the book in print, but shorn of any useful notes or discussion and the inability of even scholars even now to talk about it without sniggering or frowning in righteous condemnation.) (It's porn, but it's very, very good porn.) Geogre 02:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, as a matter of scholarly interest, how do you define "very, very good porn"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Any that stars me? - brenneman^(t)(c) 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Doubt it. At least in the 18th century, it's not your finger you're supposed to waggle. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, for example, there is a description of, I believe, feminine onanism, and, as Cleland is having Fanny describe this, she quotes Horace. I have never seen Horace there before or since. (Kidding aside, Cleland somewhat invents (as much as there is ever an inventor for anything in pornography) the picaresque porn, where a poor girl is abused, discovers that she rather enjoys it, and, eyes (among other things) wide, goes on to see what else she can discover. As a pornographic novel (as opposed to just a bit of paper thrill), as a marriage of the 18th c. girl-in-distress-goes-bad with the male fantasy of male libido in female body, and as a well written (sentence level; variation of verbs, care with description, balance of figurative with literal language), it's a good novel and a notable achievement.) (Of course, there were so many other novels carrying the same formula that appeared so close to the same time that "innovation" is probably the last feature to credit.) (And, of course, Defoe's Moll Flanders is this close to Fanny Hill -- just lacks the pornographic sex scenes and has a repentence (sort of) -- that Cleland is possibly only making explicit what had been enjoyed in fantasy before.) Geogre 14:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Just reread the first chapter. (Yes, the pains I undergo for scholarship!) The Horace comes in a description of the "jade" who is ravishing Fanny in lesbian sex. Specifically, Fanny refers to pubic hair, "which Nature intended for usefulness as well as pleasure." That utile et dulce is from Horace's Ars Poetica. (What Cleland does know about female sexuality is equally surprising with what he doesn't know about it.) Geogre 22:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Bishonen! (Remember Bishonen? This is her talk page.) When I re-read the first bit of Fanny Hill earlier, I noticed an explicit reference to Pamela, as Fanny is induced to go to London by a village girl who was a servant there and who told her of a famous girl who, by keeping her virginity, got to marry the lord and become a lady, complete with nice clothes and horses. I've ordered a new copy of it, as my present copy is a ratty tatty Signet Classic edition, but my present edition, for being on pulp paper, does have an introduction by J.H. Plumb from 1965. I'm sure someone has written scholarly work on the book. I plan to try Questia for it. Geogre 04:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Question

Read what I wrote at User talk:Empty Wallow, and tell me if you would in fact be willing to let the past issues drop if she does what I have suggested. Please don't cling to hostilities if this can be made to work. Everyking 08:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You're not really going to ignore me, are you? Everyking 08:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. I'm slow, that's all. I've read what you wrote to HW. I don't think it matters if I ever mention her again or not; I can't believe the rest of the community would drop this in any case. But no, I'm afraid I'm not willing to do what you ask. I could not muster any faith in HW actually doing what you suggest, after what's been going down, even if she seemed to do it or said she was doing it. Have you really researched this case? For instance, the early stages of it? HW was never a bona fide user. She was a sock created in November 2005 to evade the (richly earned) block of Winnermario. James, I 'm not happy about the way you encourage HW to think of herself as a victim of my "very bad approach", or your telling her she's been, for God's sake, "wronged"—by me, of course, since it's me she so understandably "counterattacks". I dislike especially the way, in your message to her, you dismiss my critique of her contributions as yet another outflow of my unreasonable malice, after you didn't bother to respond to me about it at all. I'm altogether sorry you speak of me with so little respect. If you have more to say about my hounding HW off the wiki, how about telling the community? Give HW some public support, take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that did not work. That's sad, that something so small as to ask someone to spare an editor if they make unfailingly good and uncontroversial contributions is unacceptable. Everyking 10:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are you doing this, James? El_C 13:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Because I believe HW, or whatever name she wants to go under, is a very good editor, which is far more important to me than the personality issues that seem to be prevailing here. Maybe HW has now gotten too upset to ever attempt what I suggested to her, so the question may be academic, but I find it incredibly disappointing that the situation has been handled this way, and that Bish won't even consider that little bit of moderation I asked of her. Everyking 13:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyking, I answered your question civilly. If you won't take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen as I asked, would you at least take it off my page? I find it incredibly disappointing that vandals are the only users whose well-being, or contributions to the encyclopedia, you have any value for. Bishonen | talk 14:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

Vandals? That's hilarious. Yeah, OK, I'll go away. Everyking 14:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, James fails to research and is quick to dismiss tireless contributors for naught (?). Why is that? El_C 15:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's stop the nonsense about HW being a good editor. She was not, and her behavior was among the silliest I've seen on WP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, she was not a good editor, and, as I've pointed out several places now, it wouldn't matter. Block evasion and an explicit intent to deceive would be sufficient to negate all that. However, what "she" wrote is competent middle school work. I'm saddened to see Everyking so pursue a point that he loses objectivity and ends up praising the undeserving. Geogre 04:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

User:Peter Isotalo keeps placing a vowel chart in Bulgarian language, which has nothing to do with the Bulgarian language. The Bulgarian language has six vowel phonemes (+ 4 allophones, in all 10), the chart has 8 vowels - which are all supposed to be phonemes. I have included one of the sources which I have used during writing the article (the English one), later today it will be followed by the Bulgarian one, which is the latest edition on the Bulgarian language by the Bulgarian Academy of Science. Both sources confirm what I say whereas the vowel chart (which is completely wrong) has an unknown origin as it has not been made by the user who keeps putting it in. I have reverted again the article because the vowel chart is wrong, on top of it, it has an unknown origin. You can re-block me again but sooner or later I'll get de-blocked and there are also other administrators to contact, and I'll pursue my case until the vowel chart gets expunged from the article or gets corrected accordingly. Have a good day. VMORO 10:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The only ones who have insisted that vowel charts have to contain only phonemes are you and Aeusoes. I've explained why it's a false assumption both through article edits and talkpage posts. Aeusoes has accepted my reasoning, but you're still hammering away...

Peter ^Isotalo 17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Mail

risposto - Rapidamente - Per favore Giano | talk 14:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh tedious afternoon nicht wahr? - where is Fil? - he's supposed to be back - I want to finish off my beautiful Olga page, and he's the only one who knows her secrets and mysteries - I don't suppose you know anything about her do you? - no I thought not. I wonder if he was the only man in her life, Ezra I mean, not Fil - Oh who would know about these things, the page needs some umph before I release it into the wild. I need a page to get my teeth into - any suggestions - some litttle stub somewhere - any ideas? Giano | talk 15:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Mail! Giano | talk 15:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Playwrights

Ok, since this place is such a hopping joint perhaps you, Bish, or someone else may have something to say on this. I've been considering merging playwright into 'play'. To me it makes sense to make this move as there isn't anything in playwright (besides the etymology of the term playwright) that wouldn't be repeated in play or perhaps under another topic like History of theatre. I left a note about this on the talk page of playwright but I haven't recieved a response. Anyone have a sage opinion on this? Thanks! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would favor leaving them separate, because there is content that should be on playwright that isn't. When someone does have the long view necessary to add that information, the two would need to be split again. What I'm thinking of is, in fact, what I cannot do, quite. I can see what needs to be said, but, if I said it, it would be fuzzy. Some things that need to be said: playwright as priest (Greece, where tragedy and satyr are both part of religious ceremonies and where the subject matter was the equivalent of what for us would be a Bible movie, as these were their holy texts; then to the fearful medieval passion play, where the playwright is anonymous as an act of devotion and humility; playwright as irresponsible intruder upon holy work in the reactions to the emergence of the professional playwright in England in the Elizabethan era); playwright as profession (emergence from actors needing scripts in the Elizabethan era, when playwrights were expected to be directors; development of the "dramatic poet" and Dryden's idea of a playwright who is an epic poet; producer playwright in the 18th c. (see Augustan drama and spectacle), where the producer writes or hires whatever trash will put butts in the seats; playwright as professional reformer at the end of the 19th c. and the muckraking/naturalist/realist playwrights who see themselves as priests again, but this time as saviors of their nations and prophets denouncing hypocrisy; playwright as commercial profession in the 20th c., where the playwright is provocative as needed to get a payday); playwright as a specialized profession (divorced from the "poet" and the novelist and the screenwriter); playwriting as co-opted by film. Again: I can offer this outline and suggest that each roman numeral in it needs subheads, but I can't do it and be responsible. Geogre 16:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, damn, and Roman playwrights, who follow Menander and other late Hellenistic writers, who might represent the first non-priestly/non-religious play writing, as they allow themselves to endlessly reproduce the Greek tragedies and to move a bit away from religious celebration in their own plays. Geogre 16:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Dam the damn: By "late Hellenistic writers" I don't just mean Menander, but all those playwrights who took their cue from Theophrastus and developed "character" comedies. Some of those comedies are kind of dramatic (but they still couldn't be too dramatic, because Tragedy was still holy-only), but it sets the place for the Roman authors to write without the Olympiad and festival of Dionysus. Geogre 16:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am in awe of your knowledge! Wow! I'll copy this discussion to playwright for further reference. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ganymead, I'm in awe of the clever way you pushed the masterful-sweep geogre button! I often try, but it's not that easy to find. Geogre, you're such a fraud, enough with the fake modesty. You're not supposed to intimidate my visitors, you're supposed to go fix up the article already. Mmmm, Playwright a Featured Article... I can see it! Bishonen | talk 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

But it's no joke! I'm not qualified! Oh, I remember the big sweep, but it's the details that are needed. There are so many ways to be almost right and so few to be just right that I wish someone like....ooh, maybe Bishonen....would actually fit it up properly. Geogre 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, did you see that I found a reference to Pamela in Fanny Hill? Geogre 03:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser request

Hello. I need to ask for an IP trace to determine whether User:201.137.188.56 and User:64.231.70.46 are sockpuppets of Drippingwilermariodink & Co. (my rationale is spelled out at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Cool (song)). I'm not sure whether I am allowed or how to ask directly. Thanks. Saravask 18:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hi there, Saravask. Yes, I saw your edit at FARC, nice job! Some 8 or 10 people, mostly arbitrators, have CheckUser rights, that is, they're allowed to check for sock puppets. They can only do this as the clinching proof, in cases where there is already strong circumstantial evidence of sockpuppetry. Any user who has such proof can request a CheckUser check. Formally, you're supposed to put the request on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration--I can't tell on what part of the rather long page--and anyway, I suggest instead putting a note on User talk:Kelly Martin. Kelly knows the background to the case, and so will need less explanation. She's also very expert with such things, which they aren't all (ahem). Please check out Kelly Martin's "outside view" on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen; you will find it a helpful account of the Hollow Wilerding checking she has done at my request, and of what it takes for a check to be allowable under the CheckUser rules. It's good if you put an informative heading and edit summary on your note on her page--in fact, "CheckUser request" or something like that—and if you lay out your rationale for suspecting these IPs. Btw, do you IRC? Because an even better and quicker way would be to talk directly with Kelly Martin on #Wikipedia, she's there most of the time (to put it mildly). See Wikipedia:IRC channels. Kelly's nick on the Wikipedia channel is "karynn". Bishonen | talk 20:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh no, I don't IRC. I actually withdrew the FARC for now, until HW is unblocked and gets a chance to answer my criticisms (it's only fair). I won't need to ask for the traces now, but at least I've just learned the procedure. Thanks. Saravask 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

HW showed up on Saravask's talk page as 64.231.114.52 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log), if you're keeping track.—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not bothering any more. Blocking the IPs shouldn't be done for longer than 8 hours at a stretch, and will carry risks of collateral damage in any case. The range is too big for even a short range block, and it's obviously simpler for her to hop to a new IP, now that she's got the hang of that, than to for me to block, write a block reason, put a template on the userpage, protect the userpage (because she messes with them if I don't) etc. The whole idea of blocking people with dynamic IPs is a joke. What difference does it make, anyway? See 64.231.75.102 chatting away on Everyking's page? See this little item? The "legal lawsuit" is good for a smile, I suppose. Bishonen | talk 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

"Legal lawsuits" are easily the second-worst kind of lawsuit there is! I plan to keep up blocking on sight. I'm not sure I see the logic behind 8-hour blocks; WP:BLOCK seems to indicate that up to 24 is all right, and it's also the case that any indefinite username block also applies a 24-hour autoblock on the IP, right? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't pull the 8 hours out of my you know what; it was Kelly Martin's recommendation, after she'd studied the first IP to appear, the one used for posting on ANI. Maybe it was to do with the size of that specific range (it's huge, apparently)? I didn't think to enquire. Bishonen | talk 03:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Neh, I'm sure Kelly knows better than me. Eight hours or less it is on any IPs of theirs. Thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Your two-cents' worth

Let me point out to you that you have absolutely no credibility with me and with others I know. The fact that you saw fit to intervene in a scenario in which you are clearly closer to one person than another indicates a basic misunderstanding of the notion of conflict of interest. The fact that you issued threats against me underlines this.

I have no wish to participate in any dialogue with you, beyond this comment.

Tony 09:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Strindberg revisited (with bonus cuddly dog for Bish)

Flea bites on the back of a human. Oh do be careful Bishonen

Don't let the Sleepy Hollow troll or other conflicts get to you. Here, have this friendly dog (it likes to listen to readings from restoration plays).

I have restarted the Strindberg bio with childhood and education, but haven't gotten much farther than that. Life and work interacts a great deal, but one probably needs to separate them in the article, just referring back and forth between the parts whenever necessary. The amount of stuff written on Strindberg is overwhelming. Make a JSTOR search and you will find a couple of review articles by Alrik Gustafsson from about 1950, covering about a dozen major works published during the years after the war alone (including the biography by Lamm).

BTW, I had no idea until yesterday that Frida Uhl later started a cabaret club in London and was known for firing guns inside luxury restaurants. There are a few references to her as "Madame Strindberg" in the ODNB, as some important English artists worked on the decorations. (She is also called the "widow of the playwright" in one place, which seems odd considering they had been divorced for years at the time. I made a general search for "Strindberg". The article on the publisher Duckworth seems to claim that the Strindberg's The Father, which D. published in English translation, was called Der Fater in the original language. I'm happy that the moronic proposal to ban non-English references was unsuccessful.) Uppland 12:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• That is definitely the most expressive canine face on Wikipedia. No doubt about it. She is very clearly saying, "What did I do wrong?" Hey, somebody give me $1,500 so I can get a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel puppy! Macheath needs a playmate. Geogre 16:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Awwwwww. I can tell that the doggy is pondering The Country Wife, worriedly. Thank you, Tups. Frida Uhl was known for firing guns inside luxury restaurants? Yeah, riiiight, your credibiliy is high. Was that during her body-building and porn model phase? I have some trouble believing in Der Fater, also. :-) Bishonen | talk 20:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't seem as if she was into porn modeling (but I wouldn't be surprised), just promiscuity, stalking and gun toting. From a review article in the New York Times:

Frida bolted to London, where she somehow managed to set herself up as an art dealer. Before long, she was toting her gun again, stalking the painter Augustus John. At the same time, she opened a German-style cabaret theater, the Cave of the Golden Calf, decorated by Wyndham Lewis, Spencer Gore and Charles Ginner. Ezra Pound dropped by and complimented the enterprising Mrs. Strindberg: "More brains than Gertie or Amy put together."

There is more where that came from: [57]. Definitely a woman worth an article all on her own. (I'm a bit disturbed by Giano's insinuation that the dog would have fleas. This is an aristocratic dog, probably brought up at Blenheim Palace. It certainly does not have fleas.) Uppland 20:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Mmmmmmmmm.....I'm not so sure those great big ears, and that long hairy tail, they harbour things you know.....and as for Geogre who has that dog on the bed....Oh NO no no! We have dogs here, they come in lie by the fire for a while, and then back out to the kennel. I shall shortly be writing a page on dog training, another of my specialities. Oh and by the way Uppland I'm researching Ezra at the moment (while that idle Filiocht is away drinking his guiness) his compliments counted for nothing!Giano | talk 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fleas are not a problem. First, they are an occasion for great poetry that can convince a girl to sleep with you. Second, if one takes sufficient numbers of anti-coagulants, as I do, their little bodies swell with blood and explode like greasy little fireworks. Geogre 16:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You've obviously never known any nice Italian girls. Giano | talk 16:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean you have some to spare? Do I not need to recite John Donne to them? I'll give you my address, and I'll expect delivery (and deliverance), C.O.D. Geogre 17:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ho Ho Barocco!

I keep meaning to tell you <boast boast> [58] It's now "18 Frenchmen can't be wrong" and it still has to stay there for ages more. Good thing things are faster here. Giano | talk 16:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC) PS: Its also been on the main page of the Sicilian Wikipedia, and had amazing reviews and reception by all three of the readers.

All three huh? Maybe they would like our Sicilian Christmas? I've noticed we've stopped editing there. Was it my St Phil edit? Or, in the wake of the userbox fiasco, have we decided that all frivolous editing is no longer to be allowed? Paul August ☎ 05:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, but it's just like looking at pine needles in the carpet, and treading on crumpled dried holly, as one goes to work on a Monday morning! Giano | talk 08:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh? You mean Christmas is over? Paul August ☎ 18:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I thought you were a priest? Giano | talk 20:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

AOL IP Blocks

Thank you for your attention and the release. I should have been in bed anyway. Best wishes. WBardwin 01:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing through the night, is it? Well, I'm a wikiholic myself, but I'm impressed that you've managed to become one, with that miserable interference by the software. :-( Good night! Bishonen | talk 01:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hollow 2

Your block of HW went through no process, so it isn't like an ArbCom ban where you could revert on sight. This is getting to the point where I feel like I'm going to have to intervene and unblock her myself. We have a great editor prevented from creating more feature-quality articles because of all this foolishness. The whole point of Wikipedia is being defeated here. Please, I ask you, let's agree on some terms so that she can return to editing, and then we will see if she'll agree to those terms. I promise you that if she violates terms we agree on, I will not try to defend her anymore. Everyking 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

James, you're moving into harrassment country here. If you'd ever engaged with, or, heck, seemed to notice, my arguments, I'd have been happy to dialogue with you, but you never have. I've already asked you to take your campaign elsewhere. Why you won't take it to the community on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen, as I've suggested, is simply beyond me; do you really think "this foolishness" consists of me on a personal vendetta against an editor because (as she puts it) I don't like her? Did you click on the RFC and see what other people think? As for not reverting on sight, you don't seem to be getting what "blocked" means, any more than HW does. It means you don't get to edit. It doesn't mean "you only get to edit appropriately". Various injunctions mean that. "Blocked" does not. Oh, and "my" block of HW went through no process? What block is that? If you have even the slightest interest in my (extremely moderate) blocking of HW, you can read an account of it here. (She's currently blocked by Snowspinner.) But I'm tired of posting links for you. I haven't seen any indication that you care to read them. We're