User talk:Bishonen

Please post at the foot of the page!

Removing warnings

moods

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox

Requests for arbitration/Giano

RFAR Ghirlandajo

ice

fire

Wikimood: believe me, you don't want to know.

Factoid

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

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

Dmitry Merezhkovsky's the Romance of Leonardo Da Vinci

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Awesomeness Barnstar

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

Great Scott! Me? And here I feel like I'm spending more and more of my wikitime in a flap and a rage[1]...! Thank you very much. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

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

Haha, how about now[2]? Eh? Bishonen | talk 10:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

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

Your email

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

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

You can delete this if you want.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EE

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

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

Sorry to be telling you what to do it rather than do it myself, but I'm not dealing with Hollow Wilerding any more. I'm tired of it, I have better things to do, and it's not like my previous efforts have been appreciated. I don't need telling twice that I've "taunted" a sensitive user, or to have my friends threatened with banning for trying to help.[3] It's somebody else's turn. (Don't you get involved than you can help, either, EM—just try to protect the pages you care about, that's what I think is worth doing.) Grrr, somebody award me a barnstar of self-pity, quickly! Bishonen | talk 12:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

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

The Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience

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

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

ALoan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Giano's talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALoan II

Seen this [4] It's quite humbling to read, and I'm not going to spoil the stark simplicity by posting underneath it, but I hope it's read and taken on board in many high ranking quarters of this encyclopedia. Giano | talk 11:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mail

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

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

RfArb comment

For Grapey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh no....This may help

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

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

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

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

HELLO!!!

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

It was lovely to see your page finally turn up on my watchlist, Lucky! Where have you been? Bishonen | talk 09:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

Ghirlandajo

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

You know, I think I've just stumbled on the root of the problem here [5]. Giano | talk 07:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

What's got into people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wasn't talking about that but about this; I haven't studied your revert wars, and have no opinion about them. What concerned me was seeing you post edits like these, and to insist[6], when reproached, on a sandbox analogy with Ghirlandajo ("he did it, so I'm gonna do it!"), to "prove" your "right" to make unprovoked insults and to triumphantly announce that you intend to go on giving people "a taste of their own medicine". I blinked in surprise when I read that. We've met before, and it wasn't what I expected from you. The best thing you can do to promote civility on the site is to lead by example, not level down to make a point. Also, about your analogy, please consider that you have pretensions that Ghirlandajo doesn't: to be a guardian of civility, to lecture others on it, to be a mediator (if you still do that, I don't know). Especially for those roles, your first concern should be your own civility—to be civil always, including to people who speak brusquely to you. I was going to make these points on your page but refrained when I saw you had archived your reply to Giano so it wasn't visible any more—I assumed/hoped that you'd started to regret it. Bishonen | talk 17:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Makt är icke blott makt, utan också ansvar"

The idea of blocking an editor one finds abrasive in order to give him/her "time to cool down" or an "opportunity" for introspection or whatever (a notion also mooted in the recent User:Giano debacle) seems to me to be mere Newspeak, and just about equally patronizing as planting officious warning templates on established users. Did anybody ever improve in civility, let alone introspection, by being talked down to in this way? [7]

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

/me blushes, then basks. Bishonen | talk 09:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

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

Thanks

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

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

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

The OED defines this in its additions from 1997:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you do me a favour

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

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

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

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

Research

I've just been researching this [8] I wonder how much longer we all have to keep accepting these decisions before something is done about it. Giano | talk 16:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Topic for discussion

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

The ol' subtlety

Long time and all...

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

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

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

Much oblige, dear.

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

CSICOP vandalism

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

Although there are some similarities (such as use of obscenities in vandalizing articles on skeptics), I don't think this is Davkal. However, he needs some serious blocking - his talk page is littered with warning notices and at least one block for his ongoing vandalism attacks [9]. Askolnick 15:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it's

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

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

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

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

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

Bio infoboxes

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

Breaking

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

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

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

User_talk:Haukurth#Talk:Viking

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

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

PING=

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

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

I'm leaving for awhile, in protest

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

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

Re: Sock-oh-rama (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADHD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thewolfstar's user page

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

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

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

CSICOP article and Davkal

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

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

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

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

If RFA is broken, Then do as you please?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wolfie

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

195.93.21.38 - again!

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

I need an administrator's help!

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

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

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

An award!

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

Charles II

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

Charles II.

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

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

wolfstar anon

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

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

please remove block

Bishonen, here is an interesting piece of Wiki policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bunchofgrapes, I have a suggestion for you, too. Would you care to review these links[10][11][12][13] and decide whether to take some action against the charming taunts? (Note that Davkal perfectly understood what my problem was with his "lyrics"—I didn't tell him—which is good confirmation in my book.) Bishonen | talk 17:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henry James

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's Alright

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

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

A possible you-know-who

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William Shakespeare

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Too butch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samuel Bleeps

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

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

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

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

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

You have mail

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