Misplaced Pages

User talk:The ed17: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:10, 25 January 2012 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,026 edits →Disappointing: want diffs ? They should be part of Civility enforcement ArbCom← Previous edit Revision as of 16:18, 25 January 2012 edit undoThe ed17 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators73,716 edits replyNext edit →
Line 267: Line 267:


Your responses are unconvincing. I see two sexist attacks, a long-term editor who turned in her bits, and you defending your MilHist buddy while turning a blind eye to blatant attacks. You're free to continue trying to convince me otherwise, but I won't be reading. ] (]) 16:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Your responses are unconvincing. I see two sexist attacks, a long-term editor who turned in her bits, and you defending your MilHist buddy while turning a blind eye to blatant attacks. You're free to continue trying to convince me otherwise, but I won't be reading. ] (]) 16:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
:Well then, thankfully I don't mind if you don't believe me, only if Bishonen does. I've already defended the majority of the points you bring up aside from the redaction, which was an attempt to keep the lid from being blown off the kettle. Please, bring me into the Arbcom case if you really think I've messed up so badly. If not, then we have nothing more to discuss, as I've already worked out the problems I created with Bishonen. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 16:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:18, 25 January 2012

User
User 		Talk
Talk 		OMT
OMT 		Articles
Articles 		E-mail
E-mail
The Free Corps' Final Stand
To either side along the bluff rim, the defenders' lines had collapsed and were pinching in upon the ramphead. In moments, all would be caught in a vice from which none would escape. They had to fall back at once, to reform their lines at the perimeter of the Gardens of Life where they might consolidate their strength and gain the support of the Black Watch. But they needed time to do that, and someone must give them that time.
Red hair flying, the Free Corps Commander snatched the crimson and gray battle standard of his company and rammed it between the ramp stones. Here the Free Corps would make its stand. Rallying his Bordermen to him, he formed a narrow phalanx at the center of the ramphead. Then he ordered the Elves and Trolls to fall back. No one questioned the order; Stee Jans had been given command of the army. Quickly they abandoned the Elfitch, moving back toward the ranks of the Black Watch that ringed the Gardens of Life. In moments, the remnants of the Free Corps stood alone.
"What is he doing!" Ander screamed to Allanon, horrified. But the Druid did not answer.
The Demons attacked. Up the ramp they charged, howling with rage. Incredibly, the Free Corps withstood the assault and thrust it back. All the while the Elven defenders continued to slip free of the noose that threatened to snare them. Again the Demons came up the Elfitch, and again the Free Corps thrust them back. No more than two dozen Bordermen remained alive. At their head stood the tall figure of Stee Jans. Regrouping before the Gardens of Life, the defenders who had fled the Elfitch looked back, watching the tiny knot of men who still held against the Demon rush. A silence settled over their ranks. They knew how this must end.
Now the whole of the Carolan lay open. Stee Jans wrenched free the battle standard, lifted the gray and crimson pennant high above his head, and the Free Corps battle cry rang out. Then slowly, deliberately, the little band began to move back across the Carolan, back towards the Elven defenders who ringed the Gardens of Life. Not a single Borderman broke formation. Not a single Borderman ran.
Ander's breath escaped from his lips with a sharp hiss. It was a hopeless retreat. At his elbow, Browork's battered face shoved into view.
"It's too far, Bordermen!" he muttered, almost to himself.
A wave of Demons edged over the lip of the ramphead, snarling. North and south among the Carolan, they began to mass.
"Run!" Ander whispered. "Run, Stee Jans!"
But there was no time left to run. Shrieks filled the morning air, and the whole of the Demon army swept forward...
—Terry Brooks, The Elfstones of Shannara (New York: Ballantine Books, 1982), 531–32.


Archiving icon
Archives

See the Archive index for all archived discussions between 2006 and 2012

Talk:João VI of Portugal#Requested move

Your comment in the section Talk:João VI of Portugal#Requested move does not make it clear if you think that this new RM is out of order or sanctioned by you. Which is it? -- PBS (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Maritime Commission type N3 Ships

I've been adding bits to your original Type N3-S ship that was based on HyperWar listing of the N3-S group. This is a relatively obscure type with all the N3-S-A1 type built for the British as requested with a coal fired plant to take advantage of their domestically available coal. More of the A2 oil fired ships were built and in U.S. use, but they were still obscure and not particularly popular. The most prominent Misplaced Pages reference, and that is a little backwater, is to the N3-M-A1 diesel "Bowes Coaster" type built only at Penn-Jersey with a very different profile as well as power plant. The major reason they show is the fact they appeared, almost exclusively for construction, in Navy listings (DANFS particularly) because the MC and Navy agreed to turn all Penn-Jersey MC contracts over for Navy administration during completion of the contracts. For that reason they appear in the effectively singleton Enceladus class. Note the categories of the N3-S vessels of both variants have zero pages and probably only a handful could be notable enough to warrant even a paragraph or two. If you have a chance to look, what do you think of changing the page to just the Type N3 ship (Always leave off the MC or Maritime Commission before type?) to cover all three types in one page? I doubt it will ever grow much considering the general obscurity of these vessels and it seems to make sense to cover the lot in one fairly brief page.

The whole lot could use reorganization to fit reality rather than the current almost exclusively Navy/DANFS centric look. Considering the swirling mess renames and such seem to bring to this place, as with João/John above, it may not be worth it. Palmeira (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, most renames are very uncontroversial, as I think this would be. I don't particularly care what you do with it; I only created it to stop a TfD back in 2010. If you think that's the best solution, please, go ahead. :-) Ed  23:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. It should be completely non-controversial and probably nearly invisible. What I am thinking about with respect to the Enceladus class/Port Repair Ships may be less so since that would be deleting some of the individual ship pages that started as nothing but DANFS copies for ships that were Navy for a few days or even just a day. I think it would be logical to cover the four ships that had actual naval service in individual pages and consolidate the others under port repair where several got overseas, though others just vanished even there. Palmeira (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

John/Joao VI progress report

It has been reasonably civilized thus far, but it began to fray at the edges this afternoon once User:Paulista01 questioned other editors right to comment , and quickly got personal. Evidence of disruptive and chilling impact: umbrage taken by other editors at Paulista01's comments (& mini-edit-war)

  • - User:DWC LR lured to counter-accuse.
  • - Paulista's response
  • - User:Moriori compelled to defend his right to participate.
  • ] admin User:Dicklyon compelled to justify his right to participate.

(mini-edit war: User:Prodego's first attempt to contain disruption , Paulista01's restores comment that launched disruption , Prodego reverts , Paulista01 reverts , User:PeterSymonds reverses .

User:Lecen thus far:

  • ] uncivil comment to User:SergeWoodzing "You may not know Portuguese and Brazilian history, but I do."
  • uncivil tone to User:Prodego "See your talk page. It's all there. Ow, I'm sorry, you ignored it. My bad."
  • - Lecen enters into Paulista01's opening
  • - personal attack by Lecen on User:Wikid77, "At least try to pretend you know something about Portuguese/Brazilian history"

I'm not launching the ANI yet, just making you aware of attempts to cook up a hostile atmosphere and drive away other participants. If you can, persuade Lecen to rectify the tone of that last comment. Walrasiad (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Prodego is already discussing it with him, I believe. I'll keep an eye on it but will probably be offline until tonight or tomorrow. Ed  23:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:SMS

Hello, The ed17. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Q

No, it is the IP address of the library where I usually edit Misplaced Pages. I have had a couple incidents of other people using my account while I had stepped away from my computer for a few minutes. Just some absent-mindedness. Wild Wolf (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

From the comment on the Wikiproject MILHIST talk page, it looks like that person is leaving Misplaced Pages, so hopefully there won't be any further problems. Wild Wolf (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Jan Bugle

Hi mate, the Contest results are done and I'm just finishing off the December Article News for inclusion in this issue (actually we have to ensure the January issue uses the December Article News page, February uses January, etc, to get in sync -- will look at that shortly). I'll also do the Awards handed out in December. Do you want to look at From the Editors? That can include a reminder about Military Historian of the Year, noms having opened and voting due to start on the 21st. Not sure we have an Op-Ed though, and need to check if HcHc has his book review ready yet (we at least have one from Nick)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting thought. I think we have to go with the December articles unless we want to delay publishing it until February. Should we note this somewhere on the page? I think Hc's review could be an op-ed, or at least that's what he was saying earlier. I need to draw up questions to interview Kirill with – I'm open to a few suggestions from you. ;-) Ed  22:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Well I think our goal with skipping the "December" issue was so delivery month and issue month were in sync, i.e. "January" issue goes out in January, "February" goes out in February, etc. However we're still doing a retrospective on what actually happened the month before, e.g. we report the December writing contest results in the January issue (because of course January's context is still in progress in January), and therefore it's logical we report articles promoted to A/FA-Class in December in the January issue as well (because we don't yet know all the articles promoted in January). Same thing with Awards. As long as we get each issue out by around mid-month (i.e. around now!) then I think we'll look fine doing it this way; in fact I don't really see another way to do it... ;-) If Hchc's thingie is an op-ed, even better. If we only have one book review, that's fine. Interview questions for Kirill? Can you start off and ping me when you've got a few, and I can chime in? Gotta check on Awards from December now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'll work on this either tomorrow night or Tuesday, when I don't have any classes. Thanks Ian! Ed  07:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
How's the interview going, mate? I think we'd better get this out ASAP otherwise we may as well wait for the Historian of the Year results -- but that would take us perilously close to February, which is what we were trying to avoid by renaming the issues. Do you want to leave the interview till next month? Since Hchc's completed his piece we can use that for the op-ed, and I'm happy to run off a from the editors spiel some time tonight, mentioning Historian of the Year voting plus the review awards, in which case we'd be ready to hit the presses... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Not good, I haven't had a chance to draw up any questions yet. >< I'd like to get it out before the voting ends so we can have a last reminder to vote, so I suppose we should put it off till next month, lol. I'm in class-ish right now (Model UN is technically a class, I suppose...), but I'll try to write up FTE now or directly after. Ed  14:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Ed, Ed, Ed, I said I was doing from the editors -- I didn't get what you meant by FTE, to me it's "full time effort"! Anyway, I've just drafted pretty well what you've done but find you've beaten me to saving it. Oh well, I guess we're about ready to go then, can you just move the Op-Ed in and kill the Review Essay in the header? I'm hitting the sack... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh damn, I thought I could get it in before you so I didn't make you do all the work. Sorry! Feel free to add whatever you like. I'm starting the interview and will have it done by tonight – hopefully Kirill will respond fast. If he doesn't, we can move it to next month. Ed  17:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay mate, aside from any movement on the interview front, I think I'm happy with everything in this issue -- well done. I think give Kirill 24 hours for the interview before we issue it regardless, yep? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Chilean battleship Capitán Prat

Updated DYK queryOn 16 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chilean battleship Capitán Prat, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1898, the United States Navy attempted to purchase a battleship from Chile for use against Spain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chilean battleship Capitán Prat.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

By using Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Members instead of User:The ed17/sandbox3 as your input list at User:EdwardsBot/Spam, you hit a bunch of allegedly inactive members (maybe 650 or so?). I'm not sure if this was intentional or not, but it means that—with e-mail notifications now enabled by default for talk page editing—you might wake some people up. I guess that's more of a feature than a bug... --MZMcBride (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, using the main member list was intentional because it was meant to hit the whole project (rather than Bugle subscribers), but I think I need to move the inactive people to a subpage... but hey, as you say, maybe we'll wake up some of the old contributors and get them to edit again. ;-) Ed  00:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
A subpage would be fine, as long as you don't transclude it on the main page. That is, the bot looks at the (rough) equivalent of Special:WhatLinksHere, it doesn't actually look at the page text to determine its list. So transclusion will register as links on the page, while moving the content to a subpage and simply linking to that subpage will not. Or you could make multiple subpages and just use the /Active list as an input list. Depends on the group's needs. Delivering to inactive members is fine, I guess. I wouldn't have noticed, except the list of targets grew so considerably that I happened to look at how long the bot had been running and why. Its global brother at Meta-Wiki has had some hiccups today, so I've been paying far more attention than usual. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, actually the list is already in a subpage. Guess I'll just use that next time. Regardless of how you noticed, thanks for these notes -- I really do appreciate the help. Ed  07:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed  00:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Signpost: 16 January 2012


Deletion Criteria

Hello, The ed17. Regarding the comment you made on my talk page... What is so questionable about nominating an article that was already deleted A10 previously? Furthermore, I encourage you to investigate all of the articles User:Harvey Milligan has created a little more in depth before making negative assumptions about others.

Also be sure and note that on on his talk page he has been asked previously to stop duplicating articles. User:mjroots offers him assistance in referencing articles, however he obviously just blatantly ignores them and goes on creating further articles without bothering to ever provide any references. Thanks. Stubbleboy

Hubert von Rebeur-Paschwitz

Hello, ed17. I found this article that may be of interest to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history. The article is regarding the visit of Hubert von Rebeur-Paschwitz to Sao Paulo in 1914, he took a German squadron to Santos and received a military reception from the government of Sao Paulo. In the magazine there are many photos, all in the public domain, the magazine is from the on-line database of the Sao Paulo State Archives. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Paulista, thanks! I'm going to ping Parsecboy (talk · contribs) into this discussion, as he is our resident German warship editor (@Parsec, look at page 22 on). Ed  21:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Those are the battleships SMS Kaiser and König Albert and the light cruiser Strassburg. The photos are pretty interesting, especially the one of Strassburg, though they're unfortunately fairly small and oddly cropped. It would be nice to be able to get the originals, but I'm sure they're lost in some archive in Brazil :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they are probably in the Ipiranga Museum or the SP state archive. I will keep my eyes open, if I find anything else I will let you know. If you need a translation from Portuguese, I can help. I found this interesting since Brazil joined the Allies in WWI and declared war on Germany a couple of years after this visit. Ed, I also saw an article about the Minas Gerais once, I am trying to remember where, if I find it I will send it to you. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
You may be able to blow it up, hit print screen, get them on GIMP, and crop (if you really want the image!) :-) Ed  23:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I've never used any image editing software - no idea how :) But on the question of images, what's the word on that NARA scan thing that was supposed to go down a couple of weeks ago? Are we going to see the uploads soon? Parsecboy (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
GIMP is free and basically Photoshop-light. Just in case you ever need an image editor, that's the best you can get for free, short of pirating. ;-) There may be a few here, but I'm waiting for Dominic to let me know when they're up. Ed  00:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

3 hours to going dark.

See you on the other side. Call your congressman and Senator. Cam 02:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what the Google cache is for. ResMar 03:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Or Ask.com. Yippie! I still think we should have done a soft blackout, if anything, but oh well. Ed  04:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Completely agree, but apparently the !votestacking is A-OK. Ah well! See ya on the other side. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems we can crawl out now. ResMar 05:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that was an exciting 24 hours. Ed  20:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Poke

Poke. ResMar 03:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Abandon ship

Hey Ed, since you know boats (I'm on a boat! Take a long hard look at the MF boat!), perhaps you can add a little to SS Sirio, and/or correct some of the formatting thingies that are specific to ships (it would take me hours to figure out). BTW, it's eminent DYK material if some more sources are dug up. Yes, it was prompted by an article about the Costa Concordia disaster, and I was surprised to see no coverage at all in WP: not the ship, not the captain, not even the islands where it ran aground. Thanks in advance! Drmies (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Great song! I'll take a look. :-) Ed  20:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your help! Drmies (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Anytime! Ed  21:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help, Ed--it did pretty good. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Anytime, Drmies. Glad to see it did so good even in a non-lead slot! Ed  20:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

<3

– GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

<3 Ed  19:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Finding no appropriate award in English wiki, I resorted to pinching one from the Italian:

– for patiently steering the Wiki ship through troubled and contested waters of heated controversy, for keeping you head while others were losing theirs, for the patient suffering and injuries endured through unmerited cannonades, and for bringing the ship safely to harbor.

Once again, I'd like to extend my apologies and regret for any distress I may have caused you in this affair, and thank you for all you have done. Walrasiad (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm really impressed by the metaphors here, haha. Hope to see you around sometime. Ed  19:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

NARA update and blog mention

Hey, sorry for being a little unresponsive. I should have known it would be harder to get the images uploaded than I originally imagined, especially since I've been househunting and moving this week. I'm going to see if I can get it going this weekend.

In the meantime, I thought you might appreciate this: . :-) Dominic·t 02:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, it's fine! And thanks! Although I really can only claim credit for maybe 40% – Sturmvogel 66 was the one who did everything from "Modernization" down when I ran out of time. Is there any way to edit the blog post to reflect his contributions? :-) Also, the article received 120,634/29,578/11,433 hits (which puts it on Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/Most viewed) and the image 1618/1267/430 hits on the main page. Ed  03:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought you'd probably have some factual corrections. That quote actually came from a personal e-mail I sent a while ago, without planning on it being published, so I didn't spend time researching or polishing it, and it was written the day of the featuring, before the stats were actually in. I can let Victoria know, but there won't be any changes over the weekend. Dominic·t 15:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
No worries, it was accurate for everything but that. And feel free to include those viewing statistics when you email her; hopefully she'll be impressed! :-) Ed  15:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Misplaced Pages and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Too many crumbs...

... spoil the cookie! Your concerns about cookie metaphors may be justified, especially as I have always been a fan of the cookie as a vehicle for metaphorical expression. But I will try to spare the cookie, not spoil the chide; after all, a cookie in hand is worth two in crumbs. Geometry guy 21:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You're such a smart cookie. Last one to run out of metaphors will be the one caught with their hand in the cookie jar by Grandma wielding a wooden spoon? Ed  22:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A rolling cookie gathers no crumbs... Geometry guy 02:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bugle interview

I've answered the questions here; please let me know if you'd like comments on anything else. Kirill  05:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that makes this issue a goer now, Ed... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Me too. Sending it out now. Ed  20:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Operation Sandblast

Hello, Ed17! Hope all is well. You might want review and comment about the above. Marcd30319 (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Full front page of The Bugle Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed  00:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, guess it's too late to do anything about it now but we've got two mistakes here -- Nick-D x 2 and Kirill as Review Essay instead of Interview... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, shit. I saved the wrong version. I was previewing one on my talk page and fixed everything there, but apparently I forgot to fix it on the Edwardsbot page. Sorry Ian. :/ Ed  04:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Heh, happens to all of us... One thing though, not because of this but just for general backup, you should probably let me know the exact steps you go through to actually dispatch the thing every month via Edwardsbot. I've never done it and as co-editor I guess I'd better know in case you're indisposed one month. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's definitely a good idea. The steps are at User:EdwardsBot/Instructions. Make sure your name is on the access list, follow this general format on the spam page (making sure to up the "key" by one), change the status page to start, and watch the magic begin! Ed  07:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disappointing

This isn't a fitting reply from an admin to a disparaging post from a reviewer who is running amok at FAR: I'm disappointed that you let the attack stand, and more that you responded as you did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A full-on attack? He's asserting that Bishonen is having her wikifriends turn out to support her, and I replied that it would be commonplace even in the circle's we're familiar with (WP:ships, battleships). While the wording is couched in hyperbolic language, the intent is clear. Yes, it wasn't the best way to respond, particularly with the emoticon, and yes, it wasn't the best way for an editor to talk about another editor, but I didn't take it as a direct attack. In any case, I've had a long discussion on all this with Bishonen via email where I've apologized, and (I think) we've sorted most or all of this out. Ed  04:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
While I'm glad you've sorted things with Bish, I'm still disappointed you entertained that kind of attack from Brad on your talk page, and that your response to him amounted to, well, cabalism-- that is enabling. He's out of control at FAR, and I don't blame Bish for walking away. What's going on at FAR is not good for articles or for editors, so please don't condone it just because he's another MilHist editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Bish jumped to the same conclusion too. I don't make any distinction between Milhist peeps and other editors. I didn't say anything about cabals. Most of us here run in certain social circles, and if one of the people in it gets into a difficult situation, it's only natural for one or two friends to respond. I don't condone what's going on at FAR because I haven't paid attention to it at all – commenting on one FAR does not automatically mean I am keeping an eye on the process as a whole. Ed  06:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You are evading. You specifically defended Brad after he attacked Bish, Bish did no such thing, his attack was unwarranted, you did nothing to correct it, and when he came to your talk page with a direct (and sexist, I might add) attack, you condoned it, basically in the name of cabalism, saying you all would do the same. I'm sorry to know that's the way you think. And I'm sorry you allowed/enabled Brad to behave this way and didn't see fit to call him on it. Now this should be a classic case of the admin double standard wrt Malleus-- that someone can come to your page and call another adming the Wicked Witch of the West and you turn a blind eye, and then try to excuse it to me, by evading the point. Bah. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Diffs, rather than blind accusations, can be so revealing when you use them, Sandy. My second reply here, while very poorly worded (another item I discussed with Bishonen, as I wasn't intending that remark to refer to her, but rather a general level of incivility), was meant as politely telling him to stop. My reply to the WWofW comment, which I didn't take as sexist, was an attempt to explain why things weren't quite the way they seemed. I wasn't aware that I was trying to evade you; I was legitimately attempting to answer your query. If the answer isn't good enough, that's fine – just don't accuse me of something I'm not doing, especially when there's absolutely no reason to ABF. Also, please don't accuse me of cabalism when I specifically stated that it was not intended as such. Ed  15:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Timeline:
  1. 22:41, December 5, 2011 Brad responds to a FAR post with TLDR
  2. 13:04, January 1, 2012 Brad references "drones"
  3. 17:45, January 1, 2012 Bish queries "drones"
  4. 19:01, January 1, 2012 Nikkimaria warns (but note that Brad never struck)
  5. 19:31, January 1, 2012 The ed17-- an admin-- defends Brad
  6. 01:52, January 2, 2012 Bish mentions placating belligerant reviewer
  7. 07:11, January 2, 2012 Brad refers to Wicked Witch of the West and her Monkeys, The ed17 placates
  8. 08:56, 3 January 2012 Brad blames other editors for his outburst, refuses to strike (Are people really being told to "fuck off" at FAR, as well? This is getting worse and worse. Why is that Bishonen's problem?)
  9. 22:00, January 3, 2012 Brad refers to Bish as "Bitchonandon" and Nikkimaria "drinking the kool-aid"
  10. 23:52, January 3, 2012 Bish hibernates
  11. 01:00, January 4, 2012 Appallingly, but at this point not surprisingly, The Ed17 redacts and covers up the "bitch", with narry a warning, and then a statement that Brad shouldn't "stoop to that level", when Bish never went there. Love the deferential edit summary there.
  12. 20:27, January 4, 2012 Bish turns in bits, hasn't been back except one brief post

Your responses are unconvincing. I see two sexist attacks, a long-term editor who turned in her bits, and you defending your MilHist buddy while turning a blind eye to blatant attacks. You're free to continue trying to convince me otherwise, but I won't be reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then, thankfully I don't mind if you don't believe me, only if Bishonen does. I've already defended the majority of the points you bring up aside from the redaction, which was an attempt to keep the lid from being blown off the kettle. Please, bring me into the Arbcom case if you really think I've messed up so badly. If not, then we have nothing more to discuss, as I've already worked out the problems I created with Bishonen. Ed  16:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)