Misplaced Pages

Wow. I had no idea anything here would escalate into people throwing poo at each other, but then some people on Misplaced Pages seem to forget this is an encyclopedia and not some social clique with enemies and allies. For the record, I am 100% behind the idea of following all copyright laws to the best of our ability (and I thoroughly disagree with Giano's comments above about how the law is malleable -- no, not in most copyright cases it isn't), but I think bots and people going through tagging tons of images clumsily isn't really a good way to do it either. Whenever I see bot activity on some page on my watchlist (and Bish's was from leaving some comments recently) I like to double check them. That's why I tried to look into this one, because it looked old enough to me to be public domain, and it turns out it is. I appreciate Phadriel taking the time to come up with definitive evidence of that. On another page on my watchlist that same bot happened to get something right, so I went and cleaned up after it and removed the image from some other pages it didn't belong on either. DreamGuy 03:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, he said poo. Where are the language police?

Anyway, pace DreamGuy, the law - and more particularly its application to a particular set of facts - is seldom as clear and definite as he may think. Even if this was an infringement of someone's copyright, would they bother taking any legal action as a result? I rather suspect not. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone not bothering to take action (either because they don't know, don't care, or can't afford to sue in every single casse) in no way makes the action legal or moral. And it is pretty clear cut, as a matter of fact. DreamGuy 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I had a rather definitive statement, but it got lost in the section that didn't become a hotbed. I agree with Giano that law is not a binary operator. It is not "legal/illegal." If it were, the world would not be infested with lawyers. No, law is an activity and not a state. It is an action, an interpretation, a process, and not a simple attribute. As such, it requires people and minds, and therefore any -bot approach is wrongheaded. People have to look. A bot has to flag the bot operator to go assess. As Giano says, we are supposed to have brains, and we have to use them. The bot need not flag the person who last edited a page with an image on it, even though these devices were introduced to warn uploaders that they had missed a bit. Instead, it needs to flag the person wishing to make a change -- the person wishing to delete an image's placement. Then that person has to think and judge and then communicate as a person. It cannot be automatic nor automated. Geogre 15:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Friendly Neighborhood Lurker

Hey there, Bishonen. I just wanted to leave you a quick note, then I'll go back to my life of nonexistence. You and Bishzilla crack me up. You and the monster seem to know just where to be when things get overly dramatic. Thanks for keeping humor alive! SGT 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

'Zilla know where to be always! Spies everywhere! Ear to the ground! bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Loose end

Not to start anything major, but I would not want you left with the impression that I throw accusations around carelessly. Something early; something recent. I have lots more in-between. But I understand that the real point is not that I throw accusations around carelessly but that I throw them incessently. I do believe that I have finally been heard and I will tone it way down. If there are future actions warranted, I will follow the standard WP:DR routes.

Clarification

1. An Arbcomm dealing primarily with rulings on what types of sources can be used in an article.
2. A User personally attacking me with misperceptions instead of addressing particular concerns about sourced or unsourced content in an article.

• But at any rate, to Bishonen, thank you again for your outreach. I believe you may have misunderstood my response, from your "summary" on ANI:

1. I will do my best to avoid posting to ANI, though I was not the one who posted the majority of the incidents...
2. I have already removed the others' talk pages from my watchlist.
3. And the only reason I have to refuse binding myself to not discussing other individuals, is because the other user does not wish to communicate via email.

Smee 08:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi, guys. I hear you, in both cases. Your wiki-loyalties are your own affair, Smee, but for my part I remain unimpressed by the virtuous assurances of the "other user." (Incidentally I notice Coelacan seems to feel the same way.). Bishonen | talk 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your polite response. I cannot control, however, if Anynobody does not wish to communicate in a medium other than talk pages. Smee 04:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen I don't want you to think I'm not acknowledging what you are saying. The point I was trying to make is that I was already doing what you said in the original suggestion when you made it. If you go through my discussions with others concerning the editing habits of Justanother, Lsi john, or any other editor has been about only that. Looking at some of the other stuff I see on WP:ANI on any given day, pointing out another editor's perceived difficulty with some of the general concepts of Misplaced Pages is very tame. Anynobody 07:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:MEHVE - Nausicaa of the valley of the winds.jpg

Hello, Bishonen. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:MEHVE - Nausicaa of the valley of the winds.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Bishonen/Sicilian Christmas. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

oh well, it's an ill wind that....I had forgotten about that how young we all were once! When wikipedia was fun. Giano 21:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, I was never that young. Why aren't you online? I saw you withdrawing Harriet Arbuthnot from FAC, but apparently you're not to have any control over it. Hmm. In that case, I rather wonder why ALoan bothered to ask you before he nommed it. Creating content is no fun any more, I agree. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Well it seems to be back on FAC but attracting little interest, I was actually withdrawing it because I was furious at an incident in another section of FAC where the footnote citing zealots of FARC where complaining a page was over footnoted - so I was pointing out that they cannot have it both ways. If you ere thinking of a return to FAC I would advise against it.

I think my next submission will just be the footnotes and refs with no text. That should meet the criteria very well. Sadly people don't seem to realise that one can make a series of refs and quotes say anything you want them to. In fact my next page using refs will factually and accurately with full cites show that Wellington was a bisexual psychopath who defeated Napoleon because he was perverted pornographer and Wellington wanted to further his own base sexual gratification. The whole of the Napoleonic wars were series of amorous adventures. Napoleon a noted philanderer <true> having traded his wife in for a younger more sexy model<true> raided Europe collecting pictures of naked ladies <true>. The Italians were very cross <true>, because they were their naked ladies <true>, conspired to help overthrow the pornographer Napoleon <true>, in the meantime Wellington who had moved into Napoleon's sister's house <true> (he had seen a statue of her naked on her sofa <true>) stole Napoleon's mistress <true>). Napoleon was so cross he escaped from Elba <true>. During the ensuing battle of Waterloo <true> which we now know was over a ownership of a mistress - Wellington placed the man who stole his brother's wife in such a position he had his leg shot off <true>. Wellington won the battle and then returned home and wooed the most Mrs Arbuthnot <true> as a result of his success with her she gave him a good write up for posterity in her diary <true> Once Wellingtom had the good write up Mrs Arbuthnot suddenly died <true>. With undue haste Wellington formed a relationship with Mr Arbithnot instead <true>. The two men set up home together <true>. The couple (as they now were) lived together until separated only by death<true> All of that could be reliably sourced and no one could deny it because it would all be reliably referenced - which is why we need authors to sort the refs and explain them -I just wish someone would explain that on FAC. Giano 09:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Heck no, I wasn't thinking of a return in that sense, my last nom was kind of traumatic. Or maybe I traumatize easily, I dunno. But my next vote will be modelled on one presently on Indonesia, I think, which reads in full "Support because it has over 123 footnotes" (well, I copyedited it). I trust you will give me occasion to pen such a vote for you, Giacomo! Bishonen | talk 10:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

That bot is stupid(ly engineered or run or used)

I just had Gnomebot try to replace as "unfree" a title page from 1590. The image had {{pd-old}} on it, and it obviously came into existence 150-200 years before copyright even existed, but there it had been not tagged but actually removed by a brainless bot. The result of the -bot's actions is that a person with a wild hair who wants tags to be just so is leaving to people like me, who neither know nor care about the very latest fashion in tags, the change that he thinks is essential. Villainous and counterproductive. Geogre 12:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

xBTW

Great fuckin movie! El_C 12:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page revert

Thanks for reverting my talk page. You reverted it a couple of seconds before I got to it, and CurranH warned the user a few seconds before I could :) Guess I just have to be quicker on the draw! -- Huntster 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha, don't say that; you thanked me real fast! ;-) But the vandal was the fastest of us all, check their page blanking spree. Absolutely no reason to keep an account like that around.. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Indeed, I was looking at that action on their part. Always surprised by those that care only for vandalism. C'est la vie... -- Huntster 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The South Shall Rise Again!

I have two rebels today. First, we have Allan Stewart (Jacobite). He was, uh, a Jacobite, but of the Rob Roy sort. Then I have Bartholomew Steer, and if I were not lazy, I'd seek additional references in EP Thompson for him, as he is an absolutely perfect target for Marxist history of the sloppy (Geoffrey Hill) or sharp (Thompson) or bizarre (New Historicist) sort. Geogre 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the effrontery to mean to refer to Christopher Hill, my good man? Bishonen | talk 20:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

I do, indeed, and not the nice and devout and great poet. I never like it when I confuse the hasty historian with the perspicacious poet, but I do so regularly. (And, actually, I'm quite capable of antique condescension when I'm trying to paraphrase out the DNB's even worse sneering.) Geogre 21:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I like your Bartholomew! Sad fate, of course. Dead at 29. One senses in your source a suggestion that these rebels ought to have the sense to sit in a study and puff on a pipe and edit the DNB, instead of all that silly agitating. Don't you think so? Bishonen | talk 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

"Sharp"? El_C 21:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, crumbs. Yes. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

I never said I was glued — oh wait, yes I did. El_C 21:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(Compare my edit.) Bishonen | talk 21:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Hmm, I didn't know that John Walter was that distinguished, but I should have guessed. Then again, one of the Wiki Projects is to embed -- no lie -- CV material for search sites, so everyone will be owed a Misplaced Pages article soon. Geogre 21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, or rather that he had it good as a carpenter, so he needed to tend to his trade and wait for the Labour government to come to power in a few hundred years. Also, he seems to dislike not the uprising, but the flavor of it. Poor fool! Didn't he realize that socialism wouldn't work? It's just so tiresome that none of these people before Marx had learned that! Geogre 21:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And your Jacobite has already received "cleanup". It's a pity that people will refer to an actually helpful small edit in such a hackles-raising way. I bet they wonder why there's no gratitude. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Well, in this case, I don't mind. There was another article already -- under a name that had set up zero redirects, so I couldna find i'. It's an article that leans entirely on the web for its information, and on Stevenson, so it has some rosy romantic glow to it. Mine should probably be the bulk of the article, but I don't mind if one of the others does the merge. I think I'm not supposed to do the merge, as I might be tempted to merge via fire and desolation. Geogre 21:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I can only plead that I don't see the extreme offense in the term; I'm happy to accept suggestions for a terse edit summary to describe this kind of little add-some-links, refine-some-categories, correct-some-typos gnoming. Choess 02:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Copy-edit"? "Tweaks"? "Tweaking"? "Minor fixes"? None of those imply that the article was unclean, dirty, messy, or poorly written before it got scrubbed down. Speaking for myself, I get such bad vibes from "cleanup" that I don't think I've ever used the word in an edit summary, not even when I have been cleaning up a mess of prose. The authors of Misplaced Pages:Cleanup also seem to receive associations of mess and bad writing from the word: "Welcome to the Misplaced Pages Cleanup section! Please report messy articles below, and explain why they need to be cleaned-up (ex. grammar, spelling, formatting, order, copyright issues, confusion, etc.)" Bishonen | talk 02:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, much appreciated, thank you. A little more oil on the social gears generally doesn't hurt around here. Choess 03:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

El C's latest edit isn't showing up right now. Database FUBAR? Anyway, Geogre, did you see the nice remark on Talk:Bartholomew Steer? Bishonen | talk 21:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

I just did. I owe Alabamaboy a read, too, and so I was gratified and guilt-stricken simultaneously. It's rather like peanut butter and chocolate: two flavors that make their own experience. Geogre 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if our medievalists are still about? In the Steer article, I was pleased that I didn't have to write an article on the land of cockayne, as Cockayne was linked. Well, click on it. Ok, so perhaps I needed instead to be more formal and make it Land of Cockayne. Well, click on that. Sigh. I should have known. The moment I saw that it was blue, I just should have taken it absolutely for granted that it was a blind alley, that it was a link to someone's bubblegum card or webcomix. Geogre 22:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Cockayne (disambiguation) → Cockaigne? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

At least all that stuff is blue (and none of it is a band, amazing!) Whereas the Big Old Candy Mountain is red! :-( Bishonen | talk 22:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Big Rock Candy Mountain? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, rock? OK. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

What's more, complaining here gets results. There is now a nice dab at Cockayne, and I did an egged Cockaigne|Cockayne in the article anyway. My usual spelling is "Cockaigne" (because I learned about it in my eME class, when I had to translate "The Land of Cockaigne"), but I was quoting, there. Furthermore, Cloud Cuckooland is now properly redirected. When I was in the lieberry doing research for these articles, I tried to make sure that we didn't already have them before I went to the bother, so I was a bit mortified to find out that I was duplicating, but people aren't always very good about setting up redirects. Geogre 01:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a coincidence, I've spent the last day just over the border from Cockaigne in Topsy-Turvy World where they have similarly tasty roofing but a disdain for the toilet. Yomangani 13:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, be careful that you don't wander into Acrostic land, because the people there are just plain weird. They have their heads in their stomachs. Also, although I'm sure that Antipodes directs us right to Australia, "Antipodeans" were supposed to be very like the acrostics. They walked on their hands and wrote with their feet -- being upside down and all. Geogre 15:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I went to merge the Stewart articles, but how do you merge two pages that starkly contradict each other (see the final paragraph of each) and where only one (yours, Geogre) has any source? The bit about America and the Seven Years War sounds seductively circumstantial... but it could be credulously taken from one of the two novels involved. I couldn't find any Reliable Source about Stewart doing anything after the murder, though I guess that may say more about me than Google. I'm no judge of websites. Anyway, I lost momentum. Bishonen | talk 23:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

I believe the DNB author that the mentions of Stewart after the murder are all fiction. What's more, he was a romantic figure, and we both know how romantic figures travel the world twice round while inhabiting an unmarked grave in Flanders. Stewart was a minor man, and the legend grew after he was safely away, so he had no reason or ability to pop up somewhere to say, "Here I am!" I absolutely don't believe that that particular man, with his very common name, came to America, given his circumstances (under a death warrant in the UK would tend to make one shy of contact with the English). Geogre 01:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bishonen. The merge looks good to me, and you saw what I was talking about: people wanting to write a life to suit a novel. Geogre 11:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL

The External links policy page seems to have been taken over by people who are making changes without discussing them first, and then reverting claiming consensus and need to discuss if the new sections want to be changed. It's getting freaking obnoxious there. Right now someone went out of their way to suddenly explicitly ENCOURAGE people to link to blog sites, when that was always on the list of to be avoided sites. Pages of that importance to the project should not be tampered with lightly, and the person doing it is leaving deceptive edit comments claiming consensus whenever he reverts to his version. I hope that you and others can go take a look. DreamGuy 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Waltonsdvd.jpg

Hello Bishonen, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Waltonsdvd.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Bishonen/Archive 10. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Misplaced Pages:Admin vitriol formula

You missed one of the jokes, although I don't know how to remedy that and keep your (quite valid) point in: The formula, as it was, featured an anagram for "ROUGE" as it was. _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 11:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, having a Stupid Day! /me starts working on extending the formula into an anagram for EYE SHADOW. Bishonen | talk 12:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

I fixed it for you. How's the current version look? _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:-D Bishonen | talk 16:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

Got a month?

Hello, Landmark Education could use a hand.

Two editors are insisting that material be included, which has been repeatedly discussed and rejected by multiple editors.

The two editors are failing (or refusing) to address the challenges and concerns posed in discussion and are simply tag-team reverting their preferred version.

I have requested page protection and I am currently at 3RR, so I cannot edit there any longer.

This has been an on going long term slow edit war for some time.

Now, rather than address the concerns, one of the editors is trying to tie my original username (that had admin in it) into the discussion.

Is it appropriate to slur in a reference to my original one-post username? She isn't even referring to the correct username and has decided that since all the history has been deleted (for a username that never existed) that something untoward is going on.

I think this is counterproductive and needs to stop. These two editors are refusing to address the concerns and are stopping to trying to discredit by implication.

We could use some help there.

Thanks again. Lsi john 16:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Have I got a sec? I'm reading the talkpage, I'll get back to you around... hmm... /me scrolls down to check on size... oh, around Christmas. Unless you have a suggestion for where I can find an up-to-date informative summary and overview somewhere round there? Regards, Bishonen | talk 16:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

HAHAHAHAHAHA Exactly! *section header here changed*

The overwhelming concensus is that the material in question is inappropriate in its current form to be included in the article. If you jump down to the LANDMARK section of the discussion, and then scroll down near the first section break, you will see the arguments a bit more formalized.

Jeff. and Ester. are refusing (or failing) to address the specific concerns and are simply saying.. its sourced so it can be included. They are not addressing the question of 'relevance?' 'significance?' .. NPOV bias by mis-representing the citations by cherry-picking comments... etc. They simply revert their old 'preferred' (by them) version. Lsi john 16:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume that MedCab is the next step. In the mean time Ive asked for Page Protection and I'm asking you if ER could be formally cautioned against the direction of slurring that she is headed. I'm not going to cry NPA, but her writing is clearly counter productive and not related to the article discussion. Lsi john 16:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Formally, no. I'm going to assume good faith, however little others have been doing so. Bishonen | talk 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

Ok. Thank you. I would like to assume good faith as well. It's difficult when the editor inserted (and struck out) the same incorrect username in 4 different places during the same edit before clicking Submit, and worded it as an accident. To me, at the least, it was a counter productive edit.

I brought it to you for an impartial look. I haven't been here long enough to know what is ignored under AGF and what is something that rises to the level of being 'advised against'.

As for the page itself, I have asked for PageProtection, while the discussion and probably MedCab are utilized. My concern is that the two editors are reverting their old preferred version over top of other editors who are making edits, and thus many of those internediate edits are being lost.

Thanks again. Lsi john 18:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed that I wrote to the user—informally—always the best way to start, I think, even though on this occasion it went over like a lead balloon. I have now added a formal warning.

John, I must caution you about using 3RR as an entitlement to revert three times a day, and only being concerned to avoid reverting the dreaded four times. I've seen you imply before that it's all right to revert three times, and now you're doing it again. It isn't all right. It's Edit warring, which is considered harmful. Take a look: The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive....The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars... If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it. (WP:3RR) Bishonen | talk 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

I had not seen your post, but I have now. Thank you for taking time to look into the situation.

I'm aware that 3RR does not give cart blanche to revert right up to 3RR and stop and it was not my intention to imply that. In this case, I'd request that you notice that in combination I also requested page protection. That is not justification, as there is none for edit warring, it was simply my rationale at the time.

As you can see from the article talk page, this situation has been going on for quite some time, in a slow motion edit war that has not been making any constructive progress. And as a bedtime read, you can form you own opinion about the efforts being made on the article talk page.

Hopefully, now that the page is protected, everyone will be willing to come to the table to compromise, rather than brute force the material IN -or- OUT. I have said this on the article talk page, and I have specifically (on their user pages and in the article talk page) invited both J and ER to participate. It is clear that they have a very strong opinion that the material should be included. I'm trusting that they will be flexible on how it is worded and that everyone can agree upon a compromise.

Best Regards.

Peace. Lsi john 01:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like MedCab it is. Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-21 Landmark Education Lsi john 14:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that was unavoidable, but sometimes I wonder what it is we do here, spending more and more time on arguing and less and less on creating content. Anyway, John, you realize the mediator will have the posts of many editors to read, hint, hint? Long posts are not your friends, or theirs. You recollect the person who wrote about "brevity" on your page? Bishonen | talk 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

mmm m m mm m mmmm Lsi john 16:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

M. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

What do I get for re-naming MedCab to MeowCab? El_C 17:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You get anything you want as always! But I always thought the present name, Medicine Cabinet, was rather good, why change it... ? Bishonen | talk 17:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

Mmm. Hopefully its better now. Lsi john 18:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Improved. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

Second opinion

Bish, I would much appreciate it, if you have the time, to take a look on Talk:Atheism and tell me if I am being unclear, or somehow conveying the wrong impression, or something. Sections #criticism section and #Deleted content from talk page. The references to Vandalism are due to the Undo of Harlequinn (Harley)'s edit here, and my informing him on the Atheism talk page and his talk page that article talk pages are archived, not deleted. I'd go into more detail, but I'd really prefer you take a look yourself - if you don't have time and would prefer I put together a synopsis, I will do so. Checking his edit summaries will probably go a long way to explaining the situation. Thanks very much - KillerChihuahua 19:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, Yappy. I've been staring at it in growing despair. The bricolage of misundertaken policy fragments is defeating me, I don't know where to start and I don't know which bits are relevant to your question. Look at this red herring in the #criticism section, for instance. Harley writes: "The Misplaced Pages:Criticism guideline supports the changes I think should be made. Quotes: ..."No article should feature criticism about its topic, as those criticisms are always more appropriate at another location. For example, criticisms of Christianity do not belong in the article on Christianity, but in the articles of Christian-critical groups and concepts."

So I thinks, how very strange, does a guideline (actually an essay, but whatever) really say that, considering it contradicts all policy and all common sense? So I go look it up in the Criticism essay, and, naaah. That quote turns out to be (while correctly quoted) a complete misunderstanding. The essay gives is as one of several examples of an extreme and untenable opinion. Did I mention Harley plucks it out and says it supports him...? I presume in good faith, but what a mess, what a mangrove swamp, what a rhetorician's hell, stuck trying to explain what's wrong with that. And is it even relevant, should I take it between my teeth and run with it, straight up the vertical wall of the Reichstag, or is it one of many, many wrong sticks?

In other words, hell yes, put together a synopsis, give me a compass or better still a GPS unit, for I'm lost. I'm drowning. Bishonen | talk 12:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

Oh darn... Me too. I really should not be so hasty to offer a (unwritten) synopsis, I confess I was counting on your amazing ability to make sense out of mayhem. I will attempt to collate a synopsis and shall return forthwith. (That's a pun - will return forth, with the synopisis; if no one else posts in this section before I get back, it will be the fourth post.) KillerChihuahua 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Goeth fourth and conquerth. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

Well, as you have posted, it is now fifthwith, which if not so punny is more poetic, in a doggeral sort of way (being a dog, I appreciate that.) I will attempt to summarize rather than compile a synopsis. Summary of situation: Harlequinn, a new user, shows remarkable knowledge of obscure wiki-rules, yet utterly lacks comprehensive understanding of same. While merrily citing left and right, he also attacks all and sundry. In short, it is unclear to me whether he is a thoroughly uncivil individual who lacks basic manners, yet is editing in good faith, or is a common garden variety troll, perhaps with previous experience here under another handle. I lack the wit to discern which it is. KillerChihuahua 13:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You have mail. Bishonen | talk 15:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

Mail received and advice appreciated. I will strongly consider that approach. KillerChihuahua 20:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with User

Hi, Bish, I have been having trouble with a user who has been abusing {{helpme}} notices, and has delivered personal attacks to me, see this, because he has deleted them, and this. He has also has left a note on my page, even though I told him the correct answer numerous times, twice. And, he is going to file an RFC against me. I am seriously thinking about taking matters to the community for him to be banned or take matters in an WP:ANI thread. Anyway, please let me know what you think, and I will come back here for advice. Thanks. Real96 07:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

DYKW, I will file an ANI thread...Real96 07:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Real. I think I'll weigh in, since I've had some interchange with the user. I'ver told him he's being discussed on ANI. Bishonen | talk 10:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikistalking editor again

User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea is full on his old tricks of blind reverting all sorts of changes I made to pages to try to get at me, edit warring, personal attacks and etc. See Dilbert edit here (where he leaves a deceptive edit comment about an infobox and goes back and restores a number of links I had removed almost a month ago); Werewolf fiction here (where he lies and calls my adding a spam template and him removing it as "rvv"); Dragon, again, here, where he couldn't get consensus to restore the links he wanted before so he now removed virtually all rest as "spam," which most certainly was not at all what anyone said on the talk page about THESE links (his links, yes, but these are freaking NEWS articles); Lycanthropy here (and others, most of these have multiple reverts) where he just blind reverted again and giving no justification). This guy is chronically lying about what his edits are to trick anyone who isn't paying attention into thinking he's doing something normal when he's just undoing what I did. DreamGuy 07:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to look right now. But I'm always reluctant to invoke the "stalking" bugbear—I don't really believe there is such a thing as stalking, unless the edits are pure "nuisance edits". If they are, I'll intervene, you may be sure. Bishonen | talk 17:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm not stalking you, I'm only following your every move, only to make edits to the contrary of you! El_C 17:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Aww! Follow me to Niagara Falls, then to Vegas! Bishonen | talk 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

Now that's what I'm talking about, again! El_C 17:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SHUN modified to allow for bullying

Thank you for reverting the nonsense added to the shunning guideline which called for "difficult editors" to be asked questions which would cause them to "reveal" their "motives" and be used as a "behavior modification technique". Unfortunately, the same editor modified WP:SHUN again so that "pertinent" questions could be asked as a way to "induce" editors to "reveal their aims". Hence, bullying and aggressive questioning of motives is an acceptable tactic to use against an editor who wishes to practice shunning as an alternative to feeding the troll. Watchdog07 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Grrrr! Bishonen | talk 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

Another Day, Another Dummy

Some more troubled souls from the past. First, we have a political tool who was abused by Titus Oates: Miles Prance. After that, we have a man who kept a diary and went all over the place: Jacob Nagle. I have thoughts about writing up Frances Neville (or Frances Neville, Lady Bergavenny), but I really don't think she amounts to more than a stub. Geogre 20:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the thing with titled people here? Most people in the world don't have them, can we not concentrate on them, even I chose the only Arbuthnot to be a mere Mrs! Giano 20:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Geogre - I can email you the Dictionary of National Biography's stub on France Neville, if you don't already have access to it. --Alf 20:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Look! I do not want to talk about titled people - I so not want to read about them - I have had enough of titled people to last a life time - and do not say Hey! to me in that fashion - "Good evening Giano! please. Giano 20:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. A very good evening and a very good night to you.--Alf 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh never mind, just pretend I never said anything.--Alf 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I was off writing. No, I got my stub from the DNB, so it's no better nor worse. Giano: the reason I wrote about her is that she wrote a book of prayers, and I was conscious of the fact that, in my hopscotching through the cemetery of the DNB I had not found very many women to write about. I wanted to find a woman to write about, and I couldn't find a female rebel, so I settled for a woman who doesn't appear to have had a happy marriage. Geogre 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, WikiAlf, thank you for the offer. The way I get my "made to order" articles is by sitting down with the print DNB and looking for fitting folks. I then take notes, rearrange to get out of their format (ick!), try to concentrate on contextualizing, if I can, and then write. Giano, she's at Frances Neville. The other one is a redirect. After all, I need to have something link to the article, as I fear not much would, otherwise. The featured player in all of this, for my money, is Mr. Prance. He's got the name and the misery. Geogre 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm lucky enough to have access to the online DNB, so it was an easy offer. I noticed the red link go blue and checked it out - hence my last post about neverminding it. (btw I prefer to be called Alf, I ended up with that username as I was somehow not allowed to create "Alf", "ALF" or "A.L.F.", if you don't fancy Alf "hey stupid" will do).--Alf 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Women? How about Nancy Prince from Boston who went to Russia with her husband, and was later a misionary in Jamaica? Or Amelia Simmons, author of the first American cookbook? Or Agnes Hungerford, hanged for murdering her first husband in 1523, after the death of her second husband? -- ALoan (Talk) 01:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks a lot for the e-mails. I will just wait this out for the moment. IRC isn't everything, and I can contribute to wikipedia in other ways. I stole your wikimood as well as your RFA counter. I plan to credit you on my userpage. Thanks, and have a great day. Real96 12:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

He he, the Zen moods? That's such a coincidence, because just yesterday I was trying to steal your header--your userpage banner that changes--the one with this stuff?--but, no surprise, I'm too clueless. Also I suspect it's not possible, since it's made up of images--right?--whereas what I wanted was to be able to input pithy short texts. ("Roarr" comes to mind.) I guess there's no way of doing that..? No, I thought not. Keep smiling. Bishonen | talk 13:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

<center>{{Qxz-ads}}</center> will make...

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #33

. Thanks. Real96 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The .gif files are a series of still pictures in a display sequence. There is both freeware and commercial software which allows you to edit and build them. But you're correct, you can't simply edit them via wiki and insert new text.

Are you wanting something that does..

R

R R

R R R

R R R O A

R R R O A A R R R R ? Lsi john 13:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good thought there! Even better on Bishzilla's page, I guess. So, yes, I am, but even more, I want a text-based one where I could input My Thoughts, that would take turns to appear. Nothing wrong with if they waggle about, blink, have variable rainbow coloring, and shoot stars, either, but I'd take plain text. The essential thing would be that I could insert new thoughts when inspiration came. Couldn't be based on gifs, no. /'zilla sees in mind's eye frantic coding breaking out in honorable competition among salon regulars. Is pleased. Stares pointedly at Puppy and Bunchofgrapes. First prize: not being eaten! bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

3 RR?

What are the times in excess of what is allowed that you think I have reverted the TSSI article?

Please note, btw, how a certain person has harassment me for implementing WP:SHUN. Watchdog07 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the article history. Your last four edits are reverts. Note the timestamps—it's just less than 24 hours between the first and the fourth—and please check out the concept of a "partial revert" in the policy. Also note that the 3RR isn't an entitlement: in fact, if people perform four reverts in just over 24 hours, they're quite likely to be blocked for "gaming the policy." The behavior of your opponent doesn't make any difference, not for the 3RR. My warnings of you and him aren't meant as pokes or acts of aggression, but purely to help both of you avoid edit warring blocks. Bishonen | talk 19:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Mikkalai RFC

Misplaced Pages:Requests for Comment/Mikkalai, thought you might like to know considering your previous interaction with him on his talk page. --Iamunknown 18:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have a problem with Mikkalai. But I note that that RFC should have stayed in the creator's userspace until it was ready for mainspace, which it doesn't look to be. Nobody's tried to resolve the conflict, for instance, and menwhile the 48 hours are ticking. I won't meddle for my part, I've had enough of trying to get editors to follow the RFC instructions. It's a thankless task. Also I don't exactly blame people for getting it wrong, it's a bureaucratic nightmare. Bishonen | talk 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

D'you know I've just suddenly realised something - (ALoan will understand this) for years I've been thinking RFC stood for Rugby Football Club, and wondering why so many odd Wikipedians were interested in Rugby (even though I had never heard of some of these clubs - the world is a big place) and for years thinking because they were interested in Rugby I would give them the benefit of the doubt, assuming anyone who likes rugby can't be all bad etc. Now I realise they were all quite probably odd after all. Funny that isn't it? Giano 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please understand the 3RR in relationship to violations of WP:BLP

Dear Bishonen,

Please look at WP:BLP. Content that violates this policy may be reverted at any time, and is not subject to the 3 revert rule. How many reversions have I made within the last 24 hours that fail explictly to note that I am reverting because of a WP:BLP violation? It is only these that count.

justice-thunders-condemnation 19:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was rather expecting that argument. It's breathtakingly specious. No, you don't fail to note that you're reverting BLP violations, indeed; it's just that the things you revert signally fail to be BLP violations. They count all right. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Dear Bishonen,

Unfortunately, you have made charges here--that my argument is "breathtakingly specious" and that the things I have reverted "signally fail" to be WP:BLP violations--without providing any argument or evidence in support of them. Why then should I accept your charges?

I will be quite happy to discuss this matter with you on rational grounds (but not by trading unsubstantiated charges back and forth; that is not civil behavior). If you can convince me that employment of the N-word equivalent N___ O___ M___, in the manner in which Watchdog07 employs it, is not a WP:BLP violation, I will be willing to refrain from reverting it on that ground.

What are your arguments and/or evidence that this is not a WP:BLP violation, my friend?

justice-thunders-condemnation 19:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're asking me to prove a rather random negative. Your contention that everything you don't like is a BLP vio is too absurd to address. It's like arguing with the Red Queen or something. I have already referred you to the policy itself—WP:BLP—and to the WP:LAWYER page. Please review them. Meanwhile, as long as you're willing to refrain from violating 3RR, I'm willing to refrain from blocking you. That's my best offer. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

1. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute#3RR is not an entitlement