Misplaced Pages

Wikimood

My RFC

Thanks for responding. The whole thing seems to be coming down to the issue of Starwood Festival and its suite of associated articles having so many spam links. If you could weigh in on that it would be nice but not critical. No one seems worried that I'm a sock puppet. So, thanks! I understand. Mattisse(talk) 19:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You will want to check your mail

Good stuff. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Coolness! Bishonen | talk 21:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

Yes, good, better, how about also positioned more in the middle, not so far down? Leave it to you, but wouldn't it look more persistent? Bishonen | talk 21:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

On a topic in no way whatsoever related to the previous one

If I solemnly promise not to remove animated gifs from your pages, regardless of how annoying and spinny and flappy they may be, or how badly they make my little puppy head hurt, and limit myself to sad comments like Giano, will you call the zombie off? You're scaring visitors to my talk page. KillerChihuahua 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sad? Did you ever see anybody more graciously delighted with a pretty gift than Giano with his colibri, which is still flapping away on his page? Hmmm. Oh, you don't have to do all that, just read your mail. Bishonen | talk 00:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

Goodness, you're right, it was Geogre. How could I have gotten who was sad and who was delighted so thoroughly confused? Going to obediently read mail now... KillerChihuahua 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sad? You want sad? 1. I remember when I used to get e-mail. 2. I'm way too young to have the latest health problem. Geogre 02:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you got an e-mail on the same subject, Geogre, and you got it first. I can't help it that it kind of died. For Capital Geogre, only the capital SAD? I hope not, sweetheart! Bishonen | talk 02:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

I did? Things definitely die in my inbox, but that's because of the atmosphere. How about all-season radials and all-season disorders? Nah, this is more out of season old man's disease. The capital? I haven't any money. I shall open the box and see what's in there. :-) Geogre 11:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Great fire of london

Congratulations on the FA. It's a cracking article despite all the FAC sparks. (groan......sorry) --Mcginnly | Natter 00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. You mean it was a crackling article? Bishonen | talk 01:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

Looking forward to reading the finished entry! Best, El_C 01:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean yuo'll read it once the present stub has been expanded with a bit of concrete information? Yeah, that's a good idea. Bishonen | talk 02:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

I realize it's a work-in-progress; (no) rush! El_C 02:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

West Wycombe Park FAC

Doh! that's what tiredness does to you. Although if I remember from about 2 months or so back there used to be a template or something at the top of the page to say it had been closed!!! AH well. Ill remove it. Is there anyway to put the page up for review again. There really wasn't that much discussion and, though it's a nice page, I have seen better ones not make FA status. (all those images and red links). It just appeared that Giano's prestige as a FA writer was the main reason it passed (plus of course the quality of the writing). Ill raise the issues on the talk page anyway.... cheers --Errant Tmorton166 12:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have something specific? The fact that you don't like it is sort of irrelevant, in that we all have to come to that point where we begin to employ criteria rather than taste, where we have to recognize that not all that we like is good nor all that we do not like bad. The article passed many voters, went through revision, and was not treated reverently by the voters at all. The theory that it passed because of its author is absolutely bizarre. Those comments were not fawning, and the author has plenty of people (apparently) who will oppose because of outside matters. Fortunately, most of those could tell that there were no legitimate grounds for objecting. Geogre 13:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• "There used to be a template or something at the top of the page"—I don't think so, I believe you must be thinking about some other kind of transcluded page. FACs never had a "closed" template as far as I know. The Featured article review is the place to put a FA up for review, but you're—obviously—not supposed to do that as soon as it's been promoted. I'm sure you can see the unreasonableness of prolonging the FAC process indefinitely by essentially moving a page from FAC to FAR. Anyway, it's all in the guidelines at the top of the FAR page: three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval. I don't quite understand your point about the page sailing through because of "Giano's prestige", as FAC definitely doesn't work like that. Also, the reason Giano has prestige is that he's good. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
• In a nutshell: Giano has prestige for the same reason that the page sailed through - because he's good. Very good. You complain that "there was little discussion" - perhaps that was because of the rather stunningly simple maxim that if it ain't broke, don't fix it and Giano's work is not broken. Hopefully this will help clarify the perceived lack of harsh criticism. KillerChihuahua 19:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I've only just seen this - I feel quite touched Giano 18:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

French theatre

You Geogre and BoG know about these things what does "cage de scène" meen in English - is it "the wings" it's for the ledoux copy-edit Giano 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Non Frankoi linguarum dice. However, I'd guess that it is the wings, yes. The boxlike place for scenery. I thought everyone in the UK spoke French now, so perhaps one of them can answer. Geogre 13:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Non non mon ami. Tout la monde ne parlez pas la francais en Angleterre, wir alle Amerikanisch sprechen weil wir so viele Hamburgen essen. OK und danke schon Giano 14:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ever hear of Misplaced Pages? The free online encyclopedia, available in several languages including French? Consulting that I would guess that "cage de scène" is not the wings but the the part of the stage occupied by the actors and sets. Paul August ☎ 14:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

this site seems to suggest this is the case - It's a Canadian thesaurus - WT stands for whole term and FT stands for french term. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I'll check it out later, at the moment I have another Canadian fish to fry! Giano 15:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just a sec - looking at the definitions of gridiron - "In theatres, the gridiron is a metal framework suspended above the stage from which lights and other items are hung" - the cage de scène - that makes good sense to me now. I thought we call this the "lighting rig" in the UK, gridiron seems north american, I'll ask my father he'll know, he's a noted thespian (poor mother) --Mcginnly | Natter 15:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

IS HE?...I've always wanted to know someone famous - Gosh - do you remember that Miss World contest, when the interviewer was asking all the contestants their ambitions, and they were all saying "help little children" - "work with the poor" - "pay for my granny's opperation" - and "Get laid by someone famous!" I wish I was famous - I did once sit near Wendy Craig in the theatre at a pantomime when I was a child, and once played bridge in the same room as Princess Diana so I suppose I am almost famous. Giano 16:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh Christ! I hope I'm not almost old enough to be Mcginnly's father Giano 16:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I once met Michael Stipe when he attended a play I was performing in--such a nice man and with such beaitful blue eyes! Anyway, in the states, we refer to this as the truss, lighting truss or grid. This is used to support lighting instruments, curtains, scenic elements and/or the fly system. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to run over Michael Stipe...several times, in fact, but he always got his little blue bicycle out of the road in time. I met him and the rest of the REMmers. I know many current and past rock stars, and I held hands with Bono once (really), but my favorite among them is Billy Bragg. My most famousest meet was Bill Clinton. I had an interesting life, but that's all over. Geogre 16:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But this is from the Ledoux page, they didnt have lighting in the 18th century, just a few old jam pots with candles in I expect Giano 16:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they had quite a bit of lighting...often the scenic elements: flats and such would have banks of candles on the back, large chandeliers would hang above the stage to illuminate the actors as well as footlights. If you've seen the movie Amadeus, there is a scene onstage where Mozart meets the Emperor following the performance of one of his operas. If you look closely, you can see the banks of candles behind the flats. The chandeliers over the stage began to be replaced in larger theatre towards the end of the 18th century. These were replaced with light from the wings and footlights, all of which utilized relflectors. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

When I said noted - I meant mostly by himself and the rest of the family - He's an Am-drammer you see. Usually at this time of year we're all forced to endure several "extraordinary renditions" in the name of family unity - having heard his "Pirates of Penzance" last year, I did think about suggesting that the white noise at Guantanamo is replaced with a hi-fi recording. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The image of some poor soul being driven mad by "I am the very model of a modern major general," "There is beauty in the bellows of the blast," or "Climbing over rocky mountain" brings a smile to my face. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get you a ticket; grimaces are usually what are on our faces, but I wish you luck. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Personal Attacks"

Telling the truth is not a personal attack. Furthermore, you are not welcome to edit my personal page. What I have posted about Allister is very much the truth. And for your information, Allister vandalized another persons main page accusing that person of being a sockpuppet of me. Stay out of things you are not involved with. Alyeska 22:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny how your making my argument for me by blocking me from editing my own user page. Alyeska 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant. You make an accusation against me without actualy looking up the history, and when confronted by the person you've made the accusation to you just try to silence me by locking my page from editing and refuse to discuss the issue. Alyeska 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC) User:Alyeska

You need to stop telling experienced users that intervening against your policy violations is not their business, because it is. As a Misplaced Pages administrator, I am involved with any policy violations I see on the site. So are other experienced users: Calton, for instance, knows more about policy than many admins, and obviously a whole lot more than you do. Since you ignored my civil request to not restore the personal attack on your userpage, I have removed it again and, this time, protected the page from editing except by administrators. Please let me know when you're ready to keep your userapge reasonably civil (it's far from polite as it is, either, but not restoring the attack against Alistair is the only thing I'm insisting on at this point in time). I won't take the trouble to post links for you about the userpage policies you're violating, since Calton already has, and you don't seem to have bothered to click on them. Please read his links, they contain all you need to know about the amount of control you have of your userpages. I also urgently invite you to review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please don't make the editing climate here unpleasant for other people. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

I stopped reading the rules after Alistair demonstrated he wasn't following the rules he is charged with enforcing. I stopped reading the rules when people said "well the rules let you do this" and then afterwards someone found a contrary rule just to get my information removed. You obviously read my opinion on my page. You know I have zero confidence in Wiki policy given my past history of being abused by it. Alyeska 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read your opinion on your page, but I haven't studied the history you seem to want me to (I'm not even sure what history--that between you and Alistair, or what?), and quite frankly I don't have the time of the motivation. You see, I don't need to do that in order to know that you don't get to edit here in contempt of Misplaced Pages policy, as you do. Your generalized attack on Alistair is unacceptable regardless of circumstances and background. If the policies are too much to get your head round, I would have thought it made sense for you to take the word of people who do know about them—people like Calton, or like me—rather than spitting at them. If you consider an administrator is abusive or unfair—again, I know nothing about the conflict between you and Alistair—you can post an informal complaint on WP:ANI, or open a request for comment on him. To decide to defy policy is not one of your options. Bishonen | talk 23:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

You have my word that I won't mention Alistair by name. Infact, I am going to remove the section in question entirely because its been more trouble then its worth. The topic is a source of irritation for me. However, having typed up the topic has made it a far greater irritation that I quite simply don't want to deal with any longer. Fair enough? Alyeska 23:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not by name and not by hint either, please. OK, I've unprotected. Bishonen | talk 23:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

Thanks

Hi, Bishonen. I was surprised to see you back in the TM article after having been gone several months. I think you made some good edits. I apologize for changing the word "claims" in a couple instances where you made edits. I agree with the guideline on Words to avoid that this work detracts from NPOV.

You're right in noting that it's odd that the organization doesn't have a name. The problem is that there are many branches, and there really isn't any umbrella term. I'm not sure what to do about this.

I noticed that you used the British spelling "practise". Is there a guideline on American vs British spelling? Thanks.TimidGuy 02:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's on my watchlist, and I get an impulse every now and then. I've been watching you improve the article a lot, I don't know how you have the patience (patiense?). Is there a guideline? Good grief, there's a wikitreatise and a battlefield, as I'm sure you know, TactfulGuy. ;P I didn't intend to change American to British, but only, according to my lights, to change the noun "practice" to the verb "practise". I understand now that to make such a distinction in spelling the parts of speech is British. Please change it back. It's not that I want "claims", it's just that "says" looks a little, well, style-wise, it's kind of childish, to my ears, in this kind of context. I'd hardly ever suggest "heightening" the style, I'm against all that, but honestly, in this case... How about "states"? Bishonen | talk 07:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

Thanks so much, Bishonen, for your kind words. : ) It means so much to me coming from an experienced editor and administrator like you. And I agree that "states" is a good choice. Thanks again. TimidGuy 12:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

New at this

I'd be happy to receive your help in properly sharing my information on the page. I'm completely new at this. I notice that statements counter to the TM position are "allowed" on the page, and there are several areas where I think such statements should be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanaats (talk • contribs)

Please talk to TimidGuy, Tanaats. I'm only a drive-by editor of TM. Bishonen | talk 07:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

RfC on RPJ

Hi. I'm advocating a case on behalf of a user who is experiencing numerous problems with RPJ. I can see from RPJ's talk page that you have interacted with him in the past. If you have a moment, would you be so kind as to head over to the RfC page and leave any guidance that might help in resolving this dispute. Thanks so much, and have a great day! →Bobby← 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that I warned him, then blocked him, for personal attacks and trolling back in April. (His charming comment on my block warning is still right there on his talkpage.) It looks from the RfC and the block log like his behavior hasn't changed any. I wonder if it may be getting time for a community ban on this persistently unpleasant editor, rather than bothering the ArbCom with an obvious case? Let me think on't. Bishonen | talk 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

Thank you for taking the time to comment on the RfC. For the record I have asked the Mediation Cabal to get involved, but only to bolster the case before taking it to the ArbCom. However, if this step is not necessary, I would certainly consider doing the Arbitration now. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsquire (talk • contribs)

Do it now. If you cast your eye over a few old RFAR requests—look in the History of WP:RFAR—I think you'll find that cases this obvious do get accepted, rather than sent back with a request for prior mediation. I think the arbcom has realized, perhaps a little belatedly, that it's unfair to make good-faith editors jump through that pointless extra hoop before they can get POV warriors and abusers arbitrated. Arbitrators know that productive users deserve their protection and support. If I were you, I would more or less just link to the RFC, which is already very telling, and describe in a few words what's happening on it. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration concerning RPJ. Feel free to add any comments you feel are necessary. Ramsquire 23:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right it is misleading to label you as involved. Sorry about that, it was inadvertant. I'm going to change the heading between editors who participated in RfC, and editors who have been actively invovled. Ramsquire 01:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's not that I mind either way, I just wanted to point out that I didn't have any exclusive info of my own to add. I'm glad you decided to file the RFAR, and I hope they take my ahem ahem HINT and are a bit quick about the vote. You guys have had to put up with this for too long. Bishonen | talk 01:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

A few thoughts

A few things, since I've taken ten minutes to take a crap and think.

1. No, I was not "edit warring," nor were my actions out of hostility toward Mongo. I harbor no hostility toward Mongo, but other things which I will address momentarily. I do believe - and still believe - he once again abused his bit to silence something he a) is too close to and b) had no right or responsibility to do. That's why I re-added it, that's why I added a comment to it.
2. I am frustrated that Mongo's automatically the good guy and anyone who dares stand up to him is a troll or acting in a bad faith way. If we cannot question the actions of admins, those people shouldn't be admins, period.
3. I do have legitimate frustrations with him that spill over when you come over and threaten to block me for asking an actual, legitimate question. Having dealt with him lie about me and my motives does not sit well, and when I'm again accused of wrongdoing with no evidence to the contrary, I get irritated. Wouldn't you?
4. However you feel about his talk page, he was still wrong and I would appreciate you fixing the problem.

I'd appreciate a response. I don't recall us having any bad blood, and I'd like to keep it that way, but part of that has to do with a little give and take instead of what we just experienced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I seem to be expected to fix everything on the site today! I neither can nor want to. My concern with you is quite limited: MONGO's page and your reverts on it. I can't call twice reinserting a comment that you knew to be highly unwelcome anything but edit warring. You obviously knew other people kept removing it because it was unwelcome. In view of that, I'd call an edit summary like "ain't yours, either. If he wants to remove my comments, he's free to do so" plain wikilawyering. What would you call it, Jeff? I'm afraid I'm not going to research what's been happening at AFD and/or DRV (all I've gotten is hints, yet, that that's what this is about—I could be wrong, you could be talking about someting quite different). They're the least familiar parts of the project to me (being as I dislike them too much to familiarize myself), and I don't have a practical chance of doing it. But please note that I also don't regard it as necessary, I can see MONGO's page history without that lot. No, there's no bad blood between us, I've always regarded you as a decent user. I hope you take my points in good faith and in the spirit they're meant. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

I personally don't think anyone else should be defining what's unwelcome when it comes to anyone else's administrative actions, but maybe that's just me. What do I call leaving it up to him to remove comments? It's interesting you call it wikilawyering (there's that word again, go figure), but actually letting him decide if a legitimate question about his actions is worth keeping around.

I certainly understand your points - my gripe comes from your apparent knee-jerk (just my POV, take it as that) warning to block me if I dare ask a question, because other people view it as unwelcome. There's a lot more going on than perhaps you are aware of, and my ham-fisted assumption that you knew the details was probably my fault. I still think you're wrong, and I still think you should actually do something about it, but you don't want to get involved and I reluctantly accept that. Seeing someone I respect follow along with the deceits that have been perpetuated is incredibly frustrating is all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

MONGO had himself already removed the question from Alexjohnc3. Then other administrators removed it again, after it had been restored by Alexjohnc3. You restored that question, Jeff, with a comment of your own. The comment was new, but the question had been deleted by the person whose talk page it was; this shows clearly that it was unwelcome. Frankly, I can't understand why people are so eager to jump in and replace something that a user has removed from his talk page. I've never done that, even in cases where I, as an administrator, had issued a warning to a user who was being highly disruptive. He removed it; I knew he had seen it; I would feel free to block if the disruptive behaviour continued. What good does it do to Misplaced Pages to annoy someone by forcing him to keep an unwanted message on his talk page? Surely MONGO deserves as much respect as a disruptive troll who has been warned by an administrator that he's facing a block? AnnH ♫ 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what he removed was something entirely different, and was actually removed before MONGO deleted the talk page. If he removed Alex's comment, I wouldn't have pressed it further and taken a different route. Since it was other people deciding what was best, I decided to safely ignore it, since I think Mongo's capable of protecting himself. Now, if you want to talk respect, I'll be glad to talk to you about it, but I don't think you really want to get in the middle, as much as I'd love a neutral party to step in and end the nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry for talking over your head, Bishonen. I know some people find it irritating to have their talk page hijacked by two people talking to each other and ignoring the person whose talk page it is.)

Jeff, that was my mistake. I saw this edit summary, which, very improperly, accused MONGO of vandalism, and saw that it was rolled back by an admin. I saw that the user, whom I did not know, had posted again. I clicked on that diff, saw that it was yet another post on a subject that I know MONGO does not want messages about, assumed that the user was just reinstating something, and then rolled him back. I would at least have used an edit summary if I had not thought that it was a reposting of an unwanted message. That said, it's quite obvious that MONGO does not want those posts on his talk page, regardless of the possible good faith of those who have posted them. There's also little danger that he'll fail to see something important. Most users check the history of their pages when they get new messages, and it's already clear that MONGO is aware of what was going on at his page. Finally, there are some people on Misplaced Pages whom I trust to make a judgment about what I may or may not want on my talk page, and to remove posts accordingly, when appropriate. I'm not aware of being on MONGO's "trusted" list, but it's quite clear that he was not displeased at my intervention.

(Apologies again to Bishonen!) AnnH ♫ 01:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For talking over my head? On my page? Haha. You must be new in these parts. Bishonen | talk 01:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

Bird

Excellent, KazakhPol 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. File:SoleteRayosÑajo.gif Bishonen | talk 01:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

Jim Lahey meets Lord Mayor, Sir Thomas Bloodworth

It is little known that on 4 September 1666, trailor park supervisor / drunken bastard / hero Jim Lahey, who at the time was visiting London for some Dominion trailer park supervisors conference or another, had met Lord Mayor, Sir Thomas Bloodworth. The following exchange ensued:

My Lord, I find thy face apelike and thy form mishappen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possible that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat? (not you, Randy!) ... Thy semeth wroth, my Lord, or mayhap thine unseemly breeding hath robbed thy tongue of human speech. I do percieve, my Lord, that thou art afflicted with cowerdice as well as lack of breeding, for, in truth, no man of honour would endure such deadly insult as those which I delivered unto thee without some response. Therefore, I fear I must goad thee further.

But Bloodworth retorted sharply: "A woman could piss it out! I taunt you in the French language! I expose myself to your aunt!" Bishonen | talk 09:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

I certainly pray that goat wasn't Sicelia! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you

Problem User

I apologize in advance if I have incorrectly alerted you. There is a problem over in the Yeti article, user "Davkal" is seems to be show sign of old behaviour. There seems to be no arguing with him/her, persistent (which in itself is not a problem), aggressive and now is in the process of editing attributable text out of the article. I have tried to accommodate on more than one occasion and reword a very small piece of, quite important text from a book. I have single headedly provided neear all the references and citations, however in the case of John Napier (primatologist) a scientist of some note and John Angelo Jackson comments from experience are being blotted out. I have only really added short pieces of text, but most the data and non of my POV. The article in reality is about POV as people are observing and then interpreting sightings into something they recognize, which is not wrong, but there has never been any corroboration and so as many reportes have written, the phenomena is not soley concerned with (and its a minor point) apes, the article should be inclusive of the indigenous animals life. At ttis time Davkal is removing what he thinks is fit according to his rather retaliatory and self absorbed muddy thinking (thats my POV I am again sorry). I am asking you as to how to deal withit, I know just reverting will just compound the situation given his past behaviour. I have stopped doing work on the Yeti as a result. I have on two occasions in Kangchenjunga and Himalaya a large amount of background work to bring more to the artcles. articleOnce again many apologies if I've done this in the wrong manner. (Gowron 14:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

Appealing to me is fine, except that any admonition from me is likely to get Davkal's back up, since we have a history and, at a guess, he still resents my previous admin actions against him. I hope you don't give up editing Yeti, as you clearly have a lot to add; as far as I can see, consensus is on your side, which means Davkal can and will be sanctioned if he edit wars for his version. But I understand how disspiriting it must be to have somebody fight your good edits every inch of the way. I've put a note on Talk:Yeti, and if the same problems continue, I'll put up an appeal on WP:ANI for admins who don't have a history with Davkal to watch the page. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

I can't thankyou enough for assistance, that is all that I can ask. I'm not a good writer but I am able to do research, I do have a lot of family connections with experience of the Himalaya and also the early books on the subject or the Yeti. I can also see that you have gone through the article. I'm not a good performer at this sort of confrontation and I think its a good idea if I go away for a while and just watch, I tried today but as you can see I failed (Misplaced Pages is compulsive viewing. Again many thanks for the having a look at this problem it is appreciated, however it seems like an uphill struggle at time. (Gowron 22:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

Personal attack blocks

See what you think of the answer I gave to the question about blocks for personal attacks on my candidates' questions. Geogre 22:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

He did not say that! Stop rewriting history!! It is an affront to all trailer park supervisors and trailer park supervisor assistants!!! P.S. !!!!!!! El_C 22:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Revisionist! OK, Geogre, I'll go long too:

• 1. There are far, far too many blocks issued for personal attacks, and it seems to be escalating. I've seen people PA-blocked for expressing differences of opinion on content. What may be actually worse than the blocks are the unfounded accusations of PAs, both as admin threats and as manipulation by other users. I've seen editors consistently play the PA card to avoid having to engage with a content discussion. You might take a look at my input on this issue in the RFAR on His excellency; it was precisely this aspect that stirred me up so much that I wittingly exposed myself to a shitstorm. At the Islam articles, the manipulative redefinition of disagreement as PA had successfully shut up all opponents (except, indeed, His excellency) and left the POV of one side in undisturbed possession. I tried to edit one of these articles myself, mildly as all getout, and got told that all my talkpage arguments (which had taken me frigging hours to write) were mere personal attacks and therefore needn't be addressed; reverting me was all that needed to be done. The talkpage was full of such unreasonable put-downs from the reigning troika, towards passing anons and established editors alike. If they didn't write on Talk they got reverted because they hadn't written on Talk; if they did write on Talk, they got reverted because their argument there was just a personal attack anyway. Here we see a fine example of how the quality of articles, in this case the Islam articles, can be compromised by this PA nonsense.

• 2.That said, which I believe fits closely with your own views, I was also glad to see that you specified that disruption, in the sense of unrelentingly making life so unpleasant for good-faith editors that they give up and abandon the article, is a blocking matter. Such disruption often has PAs as a main ingredient. Sam Spade used to do that. The RFC on RPJ that I commented on today is another good example of using PAs as a way of making/attempting to make editors give up. Here we see another fine example of how the quality of articles can be compromised. And it's when PAs are used to disrupt, in this sense of the word, that I personally block for 'em. You do write about this quite clearly, Geogre, but IMO you might consider giving 2 a little more emphasis. 1 and 2 are equally pernicious, but I do believe 2 is more common. Oh, and I also consider unremitting harassment of individual editors to be disruption. Poisoning the editing lives of users is a block reason in my book even if no particular article is being disrupted. It prevents the normal functioning of good-faith, productive editors and there's no reason to put up with it.

Of course I could have made this briefer if I'd had more time. ;-) Bishonen | talk 23:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

All of that is true, and what I wanted to do was highlight "unable to work in a cooperative encyclopedia" as the personality trait that's at the heart of the people who should be blocked for "PA." After all, the ones that are worth a block are not because they contain nasty words, but because what they are demonstrating is an inability to work with other people in any manner. I pointed to Prof02 for that reason. Some people just aren't cut out for this venue. Hell, every author I've ever known has gotten a little edgy when being critiqued, and being rewritten altogether is enough to provoke homicide. How weird do you have to be to sit calmly as the reasonable DNB inspired Eliza Haywood turns into an homage to a transgressive female redefining boundaries of desire? What I see in most of these folks is that they cannot cooperate or compromise, and so they insult and shriek and taunt. It's not because of some damned word or other, but because what they're really illustrating is that they just aren't cut out for this type of website. You're right that I normally do bring up the consequences of the NPA policy and how it is the malleus mallefactorum of Misplaced Pages. It meant hunts for numb spots on all the witches, and so some people (I'm thinking of Kelly Martin's recreating a hitlist to see if her opponent would delete it) begin pricking the suspects to see if they complain. I should add that, as it is part of my core belief on the subject. Geogre 01:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We do have an article on Malleus Maleficarum, if that is what you are referring to. (We do, on the other hand, not have an article on Ming porcelain, but there is an article on Ming vases, which makes clear to the world that the only thing relevant to mention about Ming porcelain is its occasional occurrence in video games... And a lot of people seem to think that is fine. I am annoyed.) Uppland 05:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We do have Chinese porcelain. It however, doesn't mention Ming porcelain. I'm sure there's a reason, and I'm sure I don't know what it is. Curious. I'm going to be wondering about that for a while. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I think of masculine nouns as more sinister than feminine ones, but Google sure has a lot of people making the same mistake I do, and one may wonder why. As for the Ming vase, it's a clearcut case of bias at Misplaced Pages. I can't believe that they missed the fact that what's really important about them is that the rube character is forever breaking one in a 1960's sitcom! "Jethro, that was a priceless Ming vass!" <Burst of laughter from the laugh track> "I'm sorry I broke your pot." <Roar from the laugh track> I always thought it was weird that Ming the Merciless made "vass"es, and I never could figure out what a "vass" was in the first place, except an object that was easy to break. Geogre 10:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Geogre, I think Tuppland's idea is that you may want to check out this AfD. Best wear the big boots, and you will find your friend the Rube already there. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

Noting an illogical quote from WP:NPA, I went edit the policy, and ended up changing the parts of (er, most of) the "Examples that are not personal attacks" section. It feels a bit pointless, I think the entire policy is a disaster area. But anyway, I'm tired of trolls triumphantly telling me that na-hah, they can accuse people of vandalism all they want to and nobody gets to complain, look, it says so here! (Because it's a well-known fact that you're free as the wind to say anything however dumb or untrue as long as it's not a Personal Attack, and nobody gets to criticize you for it! Merely one of the many problems inherent in having the policy at all.) But anyway, I changed this and that and wrote a screed on the talkpage. Geogre, and my dear little salon, please go comment if you're interested. Bishonen | talk 06:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

James Joyce on FAR

Have you seen this? Paul August ☎ 22:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry, it'll take wild horses to get me to WP:FAR. Bishonen | talk 22:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

It's going to go to FARC because Filiocht didn't do footnotes to page numbers, when he should really have known that the inmates were soon going to insist that the wardens wear stripes and that we were about to leave the world of encyclopedias far behind and pattern featured articles on college term papers. Geogre 13:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK relax, problem solved, I have improved the article and all that was offensive has been removed. Giano 22:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think blown up to that size, we should give him a caption any suggestions? Like: "OK Nerd, just what is your problem?" Giano 22:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Well, I'm fine with the changes except to the last paragraph. The although otherwise it is phrase is both awkward, and I think, overstated. A claim of vandalism, even if false, is not the same think as saying "you are a vandal". I think it's important to maintain the distinction between talking about a users actions and talking about the user. I'm not trying to WikiLawyer this, I just don't like the way you've worded it. I would change it, but I figured I'd just give you the feedback for now. —Doug Bell  07:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/RPJ. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeti again

Apologies for the intrusion, Davkal has done his worst again and I don't want to fight anymore. However to give you the details of what I had to condense into one sentence in the article (and I said to him/her that to put all the data in the article would become far too long), I've put together the start of a document which clearly goes through all the information in a PDF file. The URL is http://www.cabernet.demon.co.uk/JAJ/TEST/Yeti-3.pdf.

If you have the time or you impartial admins that might be interested in having a look at why a very short statement has caused so much fuss. The document is the start of a chronological treatise of all material from 1832 to 1980. The relevant pagaraph regarding John Angelo Jacksons statement is at the start of page 2. I don't feel I can put that much data into a a Misplaced Pages article. Many thanks in advance for anything you can do. (Gowron 16:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

You have very interesting material. I'll try to find the time to show you how to best present it (a sample of it) in a Misplaced Pages article, because Davkal makes a valid point that the short statement is difficult to understand. It's just a couple of tricks, really: the trick of realizing how little the reader knows, plus the trick of never saying anything from yourself, but always from the authoritative source that you're using. As for not putting that much data into a Misplaced Pages article: I actually don't agree, I feel it would be a pity not to use it all (a bit more concisely put). It would be disproportionate in the present article, yes, but the way to solve that is to create a new, detailed article, called as it might be History of the Yeti myth, and have a summary of it in the article Yeti. Confused? Just look at an example, for instance William Shakespeare. See the section "Plays"? It's got a little notation like this on top:

That tells the reader that the section is only a summary of the much fuller "main article" Shakespeare's plays. This is a well-accepted and much-used system; you might think of using it for your material. Anyway, you'll hear from me with some concrete presentation suggestions. Bishonen | talk 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

I'm impressed that you've read the the Yeti-3.pdf document, (put together last night and this morning) I agree also that it, the data, should all be used and I'm quite happy to finish the article and put it into a fuller detailed account. I very much appreciate your option, I was becoming quite at a loss as too how to proceed in the face of so much negativity from one source. I did hint at the notion (in the earlier part of the discussion) that the shortness of the comment is the result of drastically distilling a huge amount of factual data, that everything else is taken from, and reported fact into one sentence. Agreed that a new article would have to be more consise or pared down, however I feel that much work could be just target practice for you know who to keep ridiculing, would there be some protection whilst it is being setup. You must know that it can be exhausting writing text which is either previously unseen in some cases or not seen in 30 to 40 years, which are the detailed account of all the text regarding this issue is just dismissed by well who know what? If a new article is setup does it not seem fairer that I should move all the data I've given to the original article. I'm trickless but I would really appreciate like to know how to present a document that can please everybody, I guess thats what politician do all the time. I've had rather too much wine I'm 50 in 25 minutes. Best regards and I'll write again soon. I do appreciate your comment

Happy birthday! File:SoleteRayosÑajo.gif Under the circumstances, you might want to draft a new "history of the yeti" article in your own "sandbox", rather than create it immediately in "mainspace," where anybody can edit it. Sandbox drafting is a common thing to do when you want to write experimentally, I often start articles that way myself. Normally, nobody would interfere with your work in your own "userspace". About Yeti being degraded—well, frankly, articles on subjects such as "cryptids" or whatever are forever in flux, and it can indeed be disspiriting to see them spiral down to a mere reflection of some agenda—or torn apart by different agendas—but often a reaction sets in, and they improve again. If I were you, I'd leave Yeti alone for now and let other people take care of it—the beauty of the wiki system is that when one returns, it very often turns out that somebody did take care of it—and work on your own "main article", until it's ready to be summarized in Yeti. That's just my suggestion, I'm not here to tell you what to do. Anyway, I'll set up that sandbox for you soon, and leave some suggestions in it, and you can see if you like to work that way. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the congrads, its my 50th and so a little depressed but things will imporve as the chanpagne has just be opened. Thanks also for pragmatic and its ovious you've been there before many times. I'll do as you suggest as seems to be a way of writting without offending. Its a lot of work, so to be sure do you really think the subject merits it and the probable final length, I trust your opinion. I've not used a sandbox before, I'll have a look for it. Apreciate the kind words. (Gowron 14:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC))

Good morning, I've got a 50 year old hangover, my own fault. I'm going to take your advice and leave the YETI alone for the moment, and possibly think about a complete re-write that could be presented in about 6 months, it’s the research that uses up the time. I/we/they need to get everything together, and come up with what needs to be said and in what order that has none of the current mistakes etc (that will be a miracle). But a lot more verified facts need to get presented, however the more you find the more trouble you seem to run into, but thats the process of closing all the questions down as your come up against them that we live with it seems. I have a hill information (80% I've not read yet), references and original press releases that have never been seen or at least very rarely. Again your take on these matters is much appreciated. (Gowron 10:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

Re

So, I guess this is how you are biased against your enemies? Telling me not to be a troll, even when your own evolutionist buddies do the same. I am an uncivil person and I treat people the way they treat me. I do not regard your comment as fair or friendly (the stuck up way it was written), so I am not your friend. Do not warn me about nonsense issues, and spend your time at rather improving articles. Thank you. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 17:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so Ly4321 is also you, is he? That's interesting. Using sockpuppets to fake extra support for your position is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Do you have any more? I have no "buddies" at the page you're talking about, and I'm not responsible for researching the entire site before warning one abusive user. Being "an uncivil person" won't fly here. Edit civilly when you return or you'll face a longer block. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

207.200.116.67 unblocked

On August 9th, 2006, you blocked 207.200.116.67 (talk · contribs) indefinitely because of the Bobby Boulders vandal. However, 207.200.116.67 is an AOL proxy shared by many users. Since we're not supposed to give long blocks to IP addresses, let alone AOL proxies, I've unblocked 207.200.116.67. As far as I can tell, Bobby Boulders has been long gone anyways. --Ixfd64 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear, indefinite, and AOL, yet? In my defense, the "block anons only" feature was new then, or new to me, and I must have been drunk with power at what I thought, too optimistically, would finally make it possible to block vandalising AOL anons effectively. Or perhaps just drunk. It's lost in the mists of history, I'm afraid. Thanks for fixing it. Bishonen | talk 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

Mood meter

Anything I can do to help your mood? --Ideogram 07:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, thanks. My mood meter is pretty silly. It's not really numerical, I simply tend to use the moods with my favorite phrases. Can't resist that ole Rain of Frogs. The positive moods are less funny, so they tend not to get used. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

We could fix that. KillerChihuahua 11:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

They're LESS funny. Doesn't mean they're not HILARIOUS. Run, little Puppy, the big one's coming! Run for your life! Do not mistake Bishzilla's modesty another time, if you ever see another time! Bishzilla 11:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

In the highly unlikely event that I do, I will keep that in mind. Actually, what I meant was we could edit the red moods to be less funny. I personally like Auntie's Advice Column, and its a green mood. I may have a bias for that one tho.

As regards running: in addition to my usual handicap of little short legs, I have recently been attacked by a zombie chicken, I have been chastised for having a sense of humor. Running not really an option right now. (puppy hobbles off in search of more coffee) KillerChihuahua 11:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A plea for help

Would you mind having a read over Palais Strousberg? I've translated it from German and I'd be very grateful for a fresh set of eyes. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: user:172

Well he might like you for some reason, & therefore made an effort to make a positive impression on you. However, he's acted like a dick every time I've interacted with him, throwing f-bombs & speaking condescendingly towards anyone who disagrees with him on any topic, no matter how trivial. The last time I heard his username discussed, there were a number of old-timers like me who disliked him for the same reasons. As a result I've dealt with him as little as humanly possible. I only entered the conversation because I happened to be looking over WP:AN/I at the time & the responses he left there convinced me he hadn't changed. You're welcome to defend him if you think he's salvagable, but I feel writing articles is a far more rewarding activity than taking on a project like 172. -- llywrch 00:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not liking me (ha! bah!), it's what I've seen of interaction with others. See for instance, if you care, the discussion and links at Saravask's RFA, which impressed me; I doubt I would have been half as gracious to Clueless Aggressive Newbie Saravask (now an upstanding admin), under those circumstances, as 172 was. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

Hi, thanks for contacting me. He's calmed down a bit, as have I probably (I mistakenly originally thought he was in league with User:Vision Thing and you know what he's been up to). However, now User:JBKramer is making ridiculous edits. I'm sure they're both very nice to their grandmothers and, like other disruptive editors, are perfectly fine when nobody objects to their edits, but they're insisting on things that are no part of wikipedia policy and breaking actual policies. Historically examples prove the influence of anarchist communism, whatever other encyclopedia may or may not have said (more to do with space and the likelihood that the material was covered under anarchism). 172's campaign to make a term, libertarian socialism famously used in 1970 by Chomsky (as well as apparently since Bakunin in other languages) as a neologism is ridiculous. Despite the fact that consensus is on my side, I've still sought to compromise, but have a look at JBKramer's latest edits. I have requested mediation, I've just expanded the list of people involved, because this dispute needs someone to come in and mediate between what I acknowledge are strong opinions. However, I'd expect the same attitude towards anarchism from other editors that we have shown to the anarcho-capitalists - a properly cited, historically correct reference. And the situation vis a vis that minority view is far more extreme. Donnacha 23:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Communism 3RR

Hi Bishonen - I have no problem in answering your question nor in accepting any potential mistake. In the 4 diffs presented as evidence, 172 repeatedly removes some wikilinks, the "anarchist communism" subsection headers and trims/rewords passages in "growth of modern Communism." His reverts took place - original and 4 reverts - between 23:07 pm November 18 and 23:43 pm November 19. In the first reverts, he removes "anarchist communism" entirely but then decides to merge it into the preceeding section. I respect this editor and I've offered (thru email) to revoke the block if he pledges not to engage in multiple reverts, but its his fault for not settling the issue on the talkpage before making "compromise" partial reverts. I quote from WP:3RR:

"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. 'Complex partial reverts' refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention."

If you feel I've made the wrong decision, please lemme know why. I am open (always) to your input. I don't wish to use blocks where a discussed resolution is possible to achieve. Rama's arrow 04:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too tired to think straight, it's about five hours past my bedtime in this timezone. This is the edit I'm talking about. (Please don't tell me about timestamps in some quite different zone than what I'm seeing on my screen, that's all I need for my head to actually explode.) It seems to me that it's a rewrite of Donnacha's piece that's a little shorter, but mainly is better integrated into an article called Communism--a historiographic presentation of the concept of communism for the general reader--as opposed to an article called "Communism and anarchism compared," or such like. Also, 172 surely discussed it amply on the talkpage. But if a "revert" is now defined, for the purpose of the 3RR, as any change of another editor's input, down to a single word or dot--then presumably anybody who edits an article in any way at all four times in 24 hours needs a 24-hour block..? For they're surely always changing somebody's input--the word or dot I'm changing came from somewhere. The more I think about it, the more I have difficulty understanding that definition. It seems random to call regular editing "reverting". The definition at Help:Reverting, which is prominently linked to from WP:AN/3RR, is quite different: "To revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical in content to the page saved at that time."

I conclude that, for "reverting" as defined in the 3RR policy to have any meaning beyond simply editing, continually undoing other editors' work must be very operative words in "A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting." I really can't agree that 172's edits amounted to continually undoing other editors' work. Especially the one I've mentioned, this, doesn't do that --it's a thoughtful edit, and doesn't undo anybody's work IMO. Surely it can't, at the very least, be seen as a link in any sort of chain of continually undoing other editors' work. That's what I think. But I'm done, and going to bed, I'll leave it with confidence to you. Bishonen | talk 05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

Your rationale is very illuminative. However, I still disagree - thru the edits he made in the diffs, 172 was inserting his data thru the modification of the existing text. The things he continually changed were removing the "anarchist-communism" section and the wikilink on "ideology." He also sought to reshape the passage in "growth of modern Communism." Now the other editors were insisting that he not make those changes - its not my concern if they were right/wrong in this but that 172 kept insisting on reverting to his version, albeit with modifications to placate those who reverted him before. I followed a strict interpretation of 3RR based on the quote from the policy - what I would have expected 172 to do after 1-2 reversions, is to discuss his proposals for compromise and make the change only after the talkpage discussion settled down. Edit summaries don't do work for the talkpage and 172 should not have engaged in multiple reverts. However, I'm not a "trigger-happy" admin and I respect 172's contributions. If there is a genuine problem over 3RR's correct application here, I don't mind the slightest if the block is revoked. I just hope 172 is more careful from now on. Rama's arrow 13:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Get a reality grip!

You suck, try to be responsible and take youre elected resonability for real, and be objective... --Swedenborg 01:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Who elected me to be reasonable? I'm sorry you're having so much trouble with the policies of Misplaced Pages, Swedenborg, but the place just isn't intended for the kind of use you've been makiing of it. I won't explain that again, you must have heard it about 15 times. Now just leave quietly, or somebody will come along and block you for personal attacks, you know. Signed, Calt... no! I mean Bishonen! That's it, that's who I am! Bishonen from Tokyo! (Just one question: why Tokyo..?) 01:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

You are truly evil. I like that in a woman.

Come on Calton, I'll see you in Shibuya over a beer tonight All right, but you have to promise not to destroy Tokyo Tower on the way over. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's the other alternative account, hello there, let's have a family gathering! I promise to be as careful of major structures as teh evilness permits. (/me stuffs the little Calton and the little Bishonen in her pocket and tromps off in search of Japanese beer.) Bishzilla 12:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

Ok, to punctuate it as "You suck," the comment has to be a vocative. So, there is some person called "You suck" (or Yu-Suk?), and then we get "take you are elected." Yu-suk, 1. try to be responsible and 2. take (because) 3. you are elected responsibility (clearly a personification of Responsibility), 4. (try) as if it were real, and, while you take the attempt as if it were a real thing, be like an object. Very aphoristic. Geogre 15:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read it again before turning your full subtlety to the interpretation of it, yu-suk sensei. It's not my elected "responsibility", it's my elected "resonability". That was what I responded to. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

Ah, well, that's obviously a case of polysemy at work. No doubt it was a combination of Wessonality and renaissance and, most particularly, of re-stamping with a masculine gender, as it is re-son-ability -- to take on the abilities of a son again. Deeper and deeper it gets. Geogre 15:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP

Your edit to Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal was quickly reverted by another editor, but I agree with your main point. See the article's talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 15:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I fully expected to be promptly reverted, of course. Davkal's claim on the talk page that I inserted a "false claim" by actually mentioning the one source provided is pretty offensive, but I should have expected that too. I blocked Davkal for a week once (with 100% support from WP:ANI, incidentally) and he hasn't missed a chance to attack me since. I wish I had the temper or the time to edit the articles he has his barbed wire round, but I don't: there are too many more interesting things to do round the site for me to feel like wasting time running to stay in the same place, and being insulted as a bonus. Bishonen | talk 16:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

I support your edit to the article. If it doesn't say what organization said that, it could say that members of that organization said it and that the organization published it. The weasel words saying that some have criticized CSICOP doesn't say much. I agree with you that it is better to say who is doing it. Bubba73 (talk), 16:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this exciting?

Have you read the main page today for once it is not about a boring old buildings by long dead architects, playwrights who would never have been published had they lived today - or some sort of cardboard person involved with vice, sex and violence type computer games, but actually very interesting. I knew nothing (well almost nothing) of this until I read it today. Restores one's faith in the Americans - yes I know you are American Geogre, and you too BoG and Paul and etc. etc. etc. , but you all are a very superior ones - with Italian blood I expect, and if you lived in Europe and read the press there you would know what I meant. Giano 21:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Giano, read America (The Book). DVD+ R/W 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Might I also suggest you check out one of my new heros, Keith Olbermann. If you can find the speech he gave on Sept. 11th of this year, it is truely breath-taking. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I know more about an American education than I confess too! But the older I become and the more I return (which is frequently) the more I find I belong to New york, or surprisinglu Chicago - now why is that I wonder? Giano 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lemme guess, Italian Supremacism? DVD+ R/W 21:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your words, not mine;-) Giano 21:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well "superior ones - with Italian blood" was yours, no words are mine :-P DVD+ R/W 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right, yes, I read that when it was on FAC, actually. Fun, as you say. As for Chicago, I always assumed your affinity for the place was something to do with your uncle's rather important position in the Teamsters? No? Bishonen | talk 22:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

No! As usual you are quite wrong. I was going to say before you were so rudely insulting, that Michigan Avenue is one of the few places outside of Italia where one feels a degree of "je ne sais quoi". Does Stockholm (is there a second city?) have a downtown area? I don't believe I know it. Chicago always has a special place in my heart, we return there each year for the memorial mass to a dear uncle who died so suddenly one Valentine's day there. Anyway I can't stay here idling away with you, I have decided to raise teletubbies to FA status, there is something there that interests me. Giano 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm delighted to hear you have found your level at last! Bishonen | talk 22:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

It is sad, but true Tinky Winky, Dipsy, Laa-Laa and Po have always amused me. Giano 22:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A bit of a come-down from Hairy Maclary, but it's a consolation that you don't have much further to sink, I suppose. Bishonen | talk 22:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

Oh dear Hairy what happy days they were, when dear old Fil was here too, and we used to write about "toilet paper holders" and such like, but no I'm thinking of a page on that dear little creature with "a yellow, curly antenna and an orange ball, who is concerned with the welfare of all". Giano 22:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Our New York Wikipedians' meet-up in a couple of weeks will be at an Italian restaurant, to the extent that helps you feel connected. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

May I recommend a social club in Pelham Bay, Bronx? I always felt very safe there. Geogre 04:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiki meet-ups?.....Ooooh no no no, my mother always warned me about talking to strange people on the internet - I may well be murdered or worse.... (who knows which editors may be there). I shall be watching my back, I see Tinky-winky is already arownd Giano 07:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we need to consider the dangers to the Wikipedians as they go through the frightening New York City, especially those who go in costume. I suppose they won't be going to those nice restaurants on 125th St. Geogre 13:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the ones wearing the black leather IRC initiation outfits under their cloaks, I worry for. I wonder if BoG is going, I'd hate any harm to come to him, I immagine it will be like that scene in Eyes wide shut (you know the one - they all had cloaks on - well some of them!!) I wonder if the Grand Wizard himself will be there, well they are not likely to tell me the password. Why don't you pop over to NY Geogre, you might enjoy yourself then you can tell us all about it and protect poor BoG too Giano 16:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

</abracadabra> Did someone ask for the Grand Wizard? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Quit the chatter and get to work!

Bishonen, you are wasting your talents on talk pages. There are thousands of articles that could use your copyediting. --Ideogram 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so stop talking, and get back to your fantabulous glorious editing. FREE BISHZILLA! :) WE LOVE YOU BISH! Bo-Lingua (Founder, Bishonen/BishZilla Fanclub) 00:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ideogram, it's a volunteer project. And I really don't think for a moment that you encouraging Bishonen to get out there and work hard on something is going to accomplish any positive goal. Leave off. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Tough crowd. --Ideogram 18:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. --Ghirla 18:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the situation would benefit from a bumper sticker? Newyorkbrad 00:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I haven't gotten enough flak about the ones I made already? feh. KillerChihuahua 11:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's make Brad do it. :) Bo-Lingua 19:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea - as he brought it up, he should make the bumper sticker. KillerChihuahua 20:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi Bishonen,

This is Aminz :)

I have a simple question if you don't mind. I am involved in a dispute in which some editors consider Paul Johnson (journalist), a conservative journalist who has a lower-second class degree in Jesuit method at Stonyhurst College at Oxford, to be more reliable than Bernard Lewis & Encyclopedia of Islam for the following reasons:

Johnson's publications are have likely outsold those of Lewis by a wide margin

Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill academic publisher, is a POV teritary source. The article there is written by Claude Cahen

In fact, the quotes from the Encyclopedia of Islam are removed and quotes from Johnson are replaced. I would be thankful if you could comment about it. Thanks very very much. --Aminz 03:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. here are the diffs: Please see and

And this is one of the edits in dispute where Encyclopedia of Islam was deleted in favor of Johnson because Encyclopedia of Islam is a POV teritary source. Thanks --Aminz 03:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul Johnson over Bernard Lewis and Claude Cahen? Amazing. Look, Aminz, I really don't have the time or energy, I'm about to go to bed (it's 4:30 AM here!) and arguing about sources is very much not one of my skills, either. Sorry. Geogre, Bunch, and Newyorkbrad, I strongly suggest that this conflict would benefit from your input. Please click on the three authors, they all have wiki articles. I'm surprised at Jayjg—so much so that I think there must be more to this than meets the eye, and even what does meet it is too much for me at this present moment. Brad..? How about applying some of that judicious arbiter thing to (gulp) Antisemitism? Bishonen | talk 03:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. Would you please let me know if Geogre, Bunch, and Newyorkbradare read this discussion?

P.S. the whole relevant paragraph (from Encyclopedia of Islam) is posted here (to check its context):

It cannot be denied that from the last three or four centuries of the Middle Ages there was a general hardening against dhimmis in Muslim countries, helped materially and morally by the change in numerical proportions. Before proceeding further, however, it must be noticed that this hardening of opinion was contemporary with that which appeared in Christendom against the Jews and against Muslims where there were any, without our being able to say to what extent there was convergence, influence, or reaction. On the other hand it must be emphasized that the populace were more easily excited as a result of the deterioration in the economic climate, and that generally changes in the Muslim attitude had been occasioned more by political than by religious considerations. Hitherto there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism.

Thanks very much again. --Aminz 03:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad (why the bold?) will try to take a look in the next couple of days. But my first reaction is that Johnson and Lewis are both reasonable sources and the editors should be able to use both in the article, perhaps contrasting the differing points of view. I'm not familiar with Cahen. (Maybe this should have been the practical exam for the ArbCom candidates instead of John Reid's hypothetical. :) ) Newyorkbrad 03:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Newyorkbrad, Thanks for your comment. Johnson has only a lower-second class degree in Jesuit method; not in Islamic studies or in Antisemtism studies. Furthermore he only has a lower-second class degree. On the other hand, we have a very notable source on Islam, Encyclopedia of Islam, brill academic publisher, and people like Bernard Lewis, Norman Stillman,... which are all experts. Johnson is a popular conservative journalist. --Aminz 03:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore as it was discussed in the talk page, The publisher of Johnson is New York: HarperCollins Publishers, not a univ press or other ones which particularly publish scholarly books, meaning that it is not peer reviewed --Aminz 04:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Great Fire of London

Hey, just wanted to say congrats on FA status and also wanted to apologize for not keeping a closer eye on the FAC page. To be honest, I had forgotten about it for a few days, and when I did come back to it, I saw to my dismay that it had degenerated it into a contentious argument. At the time, I was still rather new, so I was discouraged and offended to be apparently lumped into a category of "smug" editors (simply because of my oppose vote) who don't understand simple grammar, according to Geogre. Not wanting to be sucked into such an argument, I basically decided just to stay away. In hindsight, I should have followed up more closely (especially as I just now saw your comments directed towards me near the end of the FAC). Anyway, my object was more to do with the missing citations than any prose problems (the long sentences to me seemed confusing, but they certainly weren't "flabby prose", and I think we can agree to disagree civilly). I guess I must have missed the covering note which would explain why they went unsourced, so my vote probably would have changed. Anyway, sorry again for not keeping a closer eye on it, but I was a new editor and I was put off by the contentious atmosphere. Gzkn 03:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So was I. Bishonen | talk 03:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

Swedenborg

Yes, I saw the AN/I notice, but given that the guy is the original self-winding watch, they don't need my help in pushing him over a cliff. Heck, he'll probably do it himself, complete with a running start. And yes, too many metaphors. --Calton | Talk 05:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving down Ganymead's latest post for visibility

Might I also suggest you check out one of my new heros, Keith Olbermann. If you can find the speech he gave on Sept. 11th of this year, it is truely breath-taking. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, got it here, thanks. Great stuff. Geogre, I bet you've seen that? Bishonen | talk 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

I had missed that. Thanks, it was amazing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If only we could have a speaker of his calibre and intelligence as President...wow! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh my! Intelligence, eloquence, and balls. I am so glad you posted this here Ganymead, I would ahve missed it else. KillerChihuahua 00:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Another dead bird for you!

No, I don't much care if you celebrate the American Thanksgiving - how could I pass up a chance to put another dead bird on your page? There was an image on Flickr I liked better, but it was copyrighted. I provide the link for your viewing enjoyment: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoswick2/303708777/ KillerChihuahua 13:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Appeal_of_Prof02

Please take notice that a request for arbitration concerning you has been filed at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Appeal_of_Prof02. Fred Bauder 14:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Still, this is good news. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Re-experiencing the sneering and meanness on the FAC has about the same ugh factor as Prof02, AFAIC. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

Don't let the buggers get you down. It is quite lovely and deserves wider recognition. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, naturally it's lovely now, after the light copyedits! Bishonen | talk 21:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

Do not underestimate the power of the light copyedit! A judicious sprinkling of magic commas and &nbsp;es and ] and other fairy dust over an article makes everything seem much better. The ordure thrown during a celebratory day on the Main Page will demand the application an entirely different type of wand altogether. Anyway, I have procrastinated enough today. Back to work :( -- ALoan (Talk) 00:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see this dispute ended up at ArbCom. I was surprised that you didn't include the AfD link in your statement: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Erich_Heller. PS. In the Great Fire of London article, the style of referring to the sources by name in the article can be confusing: "Porter gives the figure as eight, and Tinniswood as "in single figures" Hanson takes issue..." - initially I thought this was referring to contemporary people at the time called Porter, Tinniswood and Hanson. I know you earlier explain who they are, and give the dates of their books, but still, this is one reason why I prefer prefacing remarks like this with "20th century scholars..." or "in XYZ book (2003), Pearson says...", if you see what I mean? Anyway, just a thought. Carcharoth 00:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes very good sense. I guess I just automatically did it the way I'm used to, the academic way. And also probably I felt so infinitely familiar with those names after living with them for months that I couldn't imagine anybody not knowing Tinniswood... pretty stupid, but what can you do. Anyway, why don't you just change it? I'd rather not edit that article any more, it's a sore spot for me. It got very frustrating to be called "territorial" and "trolling" or "WP:OWNing" if I made any change to other people's edits, and also get blamed for every word written by other people. Pretty much a losing game. :-( I took that sucker off my watchlist while it was still on FAC, and the IPs are welcome to improve it freely when it's on the Main Page as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, why do you think the AfD is important? I thought of including it, but I reckoned the more pages I link to, the more off-putting and heavy going it'll look. Don't you think the user talk page basically says it all..? Bishonen | talk 01:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

I'll try and look in on the GFoL article if I get time, but probably won't. Well, not until I see it on the front page, anyway! :-) As for the AfD link, that was me wanting to be completist. I think it does demonstrate some important points about Prof02's attitudes and also some possible remedies were suggested there. Carcharoth 23:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Balloons diminished

User:EncMstr has been tinyfying your crashed balloon, as well as a number of other balloon-related articles (why balloons?), based on a guideline I have never seen referred to before, saying that image size should never be specified (added to the guideline by Tyrenius here). Not very appropriate, I think, when it concerns an image like the one of the crashed Eagle.

I reverted your Andrée expedition article, because the image size change was so obviously against common sense there; one might as well remove the images entirely, as the small size makes most of them virtually useless as illustrations. I have not reverted all the other articles, as the change may possibly be appropriate somewhere else. Uppland 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Agitated

I have just read this heap of smouldering festering rubbish here what is it all about - it is a disgrace - I have just followed all the links - it is poppycock (polite word for bolox). Why are you referred to as "defendants" and "the accused." What is this all about? - why is Charles Matthews sounding like Pontius Pilate with a cracked wash basin? Why is nobody jumping up and down? It is a disgrace "accused"...."defendants" why is Fred Bauder allowing this terminology, enough people told me it was not a court of law, seems to be one law for one and another for another - if you ask me. Giano 12:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just been double checking, it is worse than I thought - if Charles Matthews had a problem with the way you answered his hopes , as it now seems he has - descibing your efforts as "maneouvres", he's had since mid-September to question you - so why hasn't he? That's what I want to know - he and Fred ought to get on their Arbcom mailing list or whatever they call it - and have a discussion about WTF is going on, before allowing you to be described as "accused" and "defendent" in public - God I'm mad on your behalf. If they want to talk legal - you need a lawyer, and a good one, because I for one have not forgotten or forgiven the Eternal Equinox proposals!, let alone the Giano fiasco Giano 13:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: see here (subsequently refactored) regarding the word "defendants" as well as my view of the case. Hopefully there shouldn't be too much to worry about this time (although I am troubled by today's developments in the Konstable case). Newyorkbrad 22:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My reading of the case is that it was brought because Prof02 was blocked and his user page was protected. It looks like Fred probably brought the case because Prof02 couldn't plead his case on his user page - see the bit under "methods attempted to resolve dispute" (or something). That might be the little thing that those blocking Prof02 have to justify. But I may have this all wrong, so take this with a pinch of salt. Carcharoth 23:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. Just saw the balloons above! I recently discovered the S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 page - fascinating! Carcharoth 23:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I just like to say to Andy Millman. Right? I may be boring, but at least I didn't lose my virginity when I was 28, to a woman that looks like Ronnie fuckin' Corbett. Prick! El_C 00:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)