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)

He gets frequent mentions in the Hall of Heroes on Air America, although they suspect him of commercial motives. I.e. he wasn't seen paying dues at the last Sierra Club meeting, I gather. Geogre 01:40, 25 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)

ArbCom? ArbCom? What the hell? Let's see what the "remedies" could have been.... Unblocking? Yeah, that might be one. Posting to AN/I? That might have been one, too. An arbitrator filing arbitration, without recusal, on the basis of a single action is bizarre, if that single action was a routine block/unblock situation. Is there evidence of a wheel war? Is there evidence of failure to listen? Is anyone certifying this? There are about a dozen places to go below ArbCom, and a dozen ways of preventing recurrence without the tedium and bitterness of arbitration, so it's staggering that such would be brought. Geogre 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom procedures state that if a user is blocked, he or she can initiate a case by e-mailing a member of the committee and asking that it be posted. I would like to think that Fred Bauder was simply cut-and-pasting the e-mailed-in case pursuant to procedure without in any way endorsing it. I guess we shall see. Newyorkbrad 01:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If the words are not his, if this is a c&p, I would hope that he would take the pains to make that clear. Given the lack of attempts at solving the problem, I would hope there is no certification, as well. The person in question is more abuser than user of Misplaced Pages. I may or may not have agreed with the block & lock, but it falls far, far below the threshhold of arbitration, in my view, and I hope like heck that this isn't yet another one of those wild ride cases where the person lodging it becomes the subject. If it does, Prof02 looks more and more and more like a Misplaced Pages goiter: he doesn't do anything, but he keeps occupying space. Geogre 04:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It says "statement by Prof02" and not "statement by Fred Bauder," and Fred hasn't listed himself as a party, so that's the inference I draw. Newyorkbrad 04:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I've read it now, and it's unambiguous. I was hasty. Even though I entered a view, I really think the best thing is for it to be uncertified and fall off. I agree with one thing about all this, though: if Prof02 learns that he doesn't get to own the article, he will probably wander away from Misplaced Pages, as he hasn't shown any interest in the site in general. Geogre 04:45, 25 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)

...Speaking of which, I just discovered balloon fetishism while stalking looking at Bunchofgrapes's contributions (staunch defense of the cheese article, as always). Apparently, balloon fetishism comes in different varieties, one of which is popping balloons. I wonder if there is any relation between that and a predisposition to like popping bubble wrap, which the Misplaced Pages article on the topic innocently and without sources describes as "stress relief". Hmm, I wonder if the scientific literature has anything on bubble wrap?Uppland 15:55, 25 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)

Huh? Who are you talking to here? PS. prick is a disambiguation page. Do you mean Prick (album)? Carcharoth 01:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

‽‽‽‽BALOONS!‽‽‽‽ Post Script: the words were written down for me in a script. :) i.e. I was not the one who linked the prick. El_C 05:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even know insects had testes! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Watch yourself BoG - I am closer to you than you think! Giano 05:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you finally made it up to Idaho, then, Giano? Wonderful! By a great coincidence, Momofgrapes and I just went out to dinner at this fantastic Piedmontese (Piedmontian?) restaurant. You should have joined us. But I suppose your southern Italian spirit, veins flowing tomato-red and all, rebels against all that white-coloured food. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"del Piemonte" actually, and its Portland..hohohoho.Giano 05:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't possibly be in Portland. I would feel the disturbance in the force, you know, as if a million voices cried out and then were silenced. Well, if you really are, and still are tomorrow, email me if you're brave enough to meet my Mom ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see what you're upset with, Giano. Charles Matthews says that all the page moves, etc., were maneuvers. He was trying to say that Prof02's complaint didn't apply to him. It doesn't apply to Bishonen, either, though. There are two parts to Prof02's statement. One is an AN issue, and one is paranoiac. He says he wants to be unblocked. Ok, that's a normal thing and doesn't involve ArbCom. Then he says that he wants "action" to be taken against everyone who has touched or commented upon his misuse of server space. That's an absurd charge, and Charles Matthews would have done well, from my armchair position, to have just said that Prof02 is demanding that we not be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Instead, he said that he had been uninvolved in the thing that made Prof02 unhappy. <shrug> I didn't read into that anything to do with Bishonen at all. Geogre 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

MONGO like IKEA

Thank you!. Indeed, the paperwork was spilling out of my old grey monstrosity!--MONGO 05:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I won't be hurt if you reinstate the classic grey, I know many people prefer it. (I just don't know why...) Bishonen | talk 15:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Opinions welcome

See Susanna Centlivre and its history, before and after my extreme rollback. See the talk page to the article. Was I right or OWNing? Geogre 13:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean "or"? It's "and", Geogre. Bishonen | talk 15:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

I rolled back to that person's edits! I don't mind additions, but look at what she wanted! Weigh in, please, as now I'm on the verge of being a misogynist for not talking about the unfairness of mean old Pope for daring to slap back at a girl. Geogre 16:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You rotten curmudgeon, you. Anyway, this seems to have sprung new-formed from Zeus' brow. I hope it is not a copyvio? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's it, indeed. These people have never seen a curmudgeon before? They don't have any mean faculty members stalking around the halls and frightening the young and eager students? Sheesh. Oooooh, nooooo, I'm the first person to make them do some thinking, and I'm so vicious! Sheesh. I know not Elizabeth Giffith, nor any secondaries on her, so I'm not going to be able to do the copyvio check, except, of course, the usual (electronic) way. If there is a copyvio that blatant, then the lot need to be slapped. Geogre 21:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Forced image size

One user keeps reverting my changes, arguing that Personally, I think that the policy is correct. Forcing image sizes leads to inconsistency of style across multiple articles... See the pertinent discussion here. El_C 17:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving (much belated).

Greetings from the aeroporto, (one hop on, one to go) where I sit patiently and prolonlgdley (segregated fortunately) from those who have over indulged. (I suspect the over indulgence of many did not start this week - please let half of them not be sitting next to me on the flight). On behalf of all of the nonAmerican editors I have carried out some research on thanksgiving (mostly wiki based admittedly). It seems like a good time is nominally had by all, but I ask you - how good by European standards is that time, this image here seems to sum it up Image:TraditionalThanksgiving.jpg, and that begs two questions, firstly an aesthetic one - why are they eating off a bedspread, is there a little reported tradition here, and secondly more close to my heart - where are the wine glasses. Now, a comment from me (at an in USA aeroporto) I do object to being referred to as an alien I have not flown in from outer space, I am in fact a human being - (there is no need to comment "Lar"). Anyhow I may be off-line for some time, my satellite thingy is attracting unwelcome attention, and a very large lady keeps smiling at me!, in an earlier queue she heard I had arrived via Frankfurt, and said she had always wanted to try a real frankfurter - words fail me - I explained I was from Sicily and clearly not her man - but she had an unconvinced look, please don't let her be nest to me on the flight. I should have accepted BoG's kind invitation and stayed where I was. I will attempt to make contact in the near future climate and natives permitting. Giano 19:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Giano..! Petite I may possibly not be, but very large is surely an exaggeration. How could you betray the empathy we shared in the aeroporto—nay, the poetry of eyes meeting ! Bishonen | talk 04:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

I don't think people have a particularly good time. (New blog post on why.) They have a good time on balance, but in that harrowing of hell sort of way. It's like taking a giant purgative. At the same time, I had 18 hr driving in traffic, running fevers, possibly nursing a cancer (and possibly not), and with a bad head cold. I come home to as many papers to grade as I had when I left, and even less energy to do anything about them. Geogre 19:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Great blog, Geogre! Bishonen | talk 04:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

Blog? Where blog? Newyorkbrad 19:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's not very funny. I think a search for "The Geogre" on Google turns it up, but I tend to forget the address myself. It's just an essay depository, but today's was "Why We Fight (at Thanksgiving)." No, apparently not. It's at, umm, litgeek-rambles.blogspot.com for whatever it's worth. Geogre 22:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC) (proving my allegation that I am boring)

I was wondering the same thing, Brad. BTW, Giano, my family Thanksgiving includes wine, liquor, beer, well, alcohol in general. In fact, my turkey was accompanied by a White Russian this year. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 22:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well I'm lost in your beautiful country - anything left anywhere? Giano 22:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the "bedspread" on the table is a quilt being used as a table-cloth. I think there is a tradition in some places in the USA (and maybe other places as well) of a quilt being something handed down in the family and added to over the years (add on a few squares each generation, or something). Carcharoth 00:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for once again defending the honor of my talkpage. This gentleman was upset because I pointed out that an ongoing arbitration page can't be deleted at MfD. As much as we might wish sometimes.... :) Newyorkbrad 19:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Let me know if there is any desire for a last-minute copyedit of any portion of Great Fire. I'm not going to play with it unless there's a section that could use a little attention.

Up to you entirely. If you've been following this page, you may have noticed that I left that article on the steps of the orphanage and hurried off into the snowstorm some time back. I mean, I abjured the territorialism I'd been so justly charged with. It's not on my watchlist, so I don't know what attention it may or may not require. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Wolfenstein

No probs. I read a lot, so it's pretty easy for me to recognize the author of a work without necessarily seeing that person's actual name. Keep up the good work. --AaronS 15:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei RFC

Bishonen (great name, incidnentally)-- I noticed that you were closely involved in the FAC on the Opus Dei article way back in September of 2005. There had been a lot of trouble getting that article worked out due to the existence of a large number of single purpose accounts that show up to promote OD here on wikipedia. (In the FAC, for example, no less than 3 different brand new accounts showed to vote in that discussion, for example).

Anyway, puppetry notwithstanding, I've recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. I think the new page is better, but the aforementioned single-purpose accounts have been reverting it pretty consistently. Could you look over the page and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvement and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 15:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow... you get a lot of comments! So many sections added since my last comment to you. I'm sure it's probably because you're trusted and valued in the community, but I think your username helps. lol.

Anyway, thanks for helping out on the OD page. If you see any other non-controversial ways the page can be improved, by all means, go for it, you're doing great so far.

On a side note, I'm assuming by your actions that you approve of the recent rewrite? If so-- could you explicitly state that approval at the RFC section? Reason being-- we still have a number of OD members threating to revert the whole thing back to the old version and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one more good edit war flare up over it. And when that happens, it would be helpful if the admins could quickly and easily go to the RFC and see a list of 15 people all in support of the rewrite.

Thanks again for lending a hand! --Alecmconroy 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the thing is, every time I've gone to look, I've gotten sidetracked into something else, like the intro this time. You mean read the old version and then read the new version...? I'll try, but it is a bit of an undertaking. I tend to not be focused enough, these past few days, to do something like that. Yeah...I get comments... I also get my friends getting comfortable chatting to each other here, over my head. If I were to go on a wikibreak, I sometimes wonder how long it would take the regulars of this salon to even notice—they do very nicely without the hostess! Bishonen | talk 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

• • <Cough>I see the intro has already been improved... "In 1950's, Opus Dei was given final approval with the 1950 constitutions by Pope Pius XII" ... no comment. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

I know what you mean. I'm convinced hypertext gives us all attention deficit disorder-- SOOO MANY clickable options. Add in a little coffee, a tv in the background, and I can go days without getting anything substantive done! And yes, I notice the improved intro had been improved. I have already taken the liberty of improving the improvememt of the improved version. --Alecmconroy 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In a recent edit, a user transformed the bullet pointed criticism to a prose form. I reverted that part of that of change, but do you think I was right to do so? On the one hand, the bullet points all the article to be a little more NPOV-- I wanted to keep the criticism very brief, and the bullet points allowed us to retain that extreme brevity but still be NPOVed balanced against a rebuttal section that was 3-4 times as long. On the other hand, we don't use bullet points elsewhere in the article, so perhaps we shouldn't here either, but should just create a longer prose form of the criticism. What do you think?

Lostcaesar has worked on a replacement controversy section here. As of this moment, it's basically just the sentences with the bullet points taken out. I think it sounds a little schiziophreni (though he may have fixed that). Do you think bullet points are acceptable, or should we replace them with a longer prose section? --Alecmconroy 16:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You know....

New blog entry...about why people in the US are having a war on the war on Christmas.

I really could use some eyes/voices at talk:Susanna Centlivre, as it's two against one. (It's a student and her advisor vs. little old me.) Geogre 19:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it seems now it was 4:1 or perhaps 5:1. No, I do not feel like Gulliver. I feel like the sorrel grey. Geogre 04:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Howdy! (one picks up the language so quickly)

Breathe a sigh of relief everyone I'm home! Normal service is resumed. So to catch up on the mail:

Thanks Carcharoth for answering my question, well actually you haven't as to why Americans dine off their bedspreads on Thanksgiving Image:TraditionalThanksgiving.jpg. Mrs G would be very cross, if I put her best "Toile de Joy" on the dining room table and then let the kids spill sauce all over it - Never mind - I'm sure it's a very nice custom, and it must be very comforting to smell that lovely meal when tucked up in bed. God! they think we are quaint

Now Bishonen, I see you seem likely to be absolved of assault on a newby. Even I 've never been charged with that one ( I think - could you check that Lar? - thank you) you must be a very bad woman indeed - I always thought it was such a boring page I'm surprised any one ever read it anyway.

Finally I see we are in for some fireworks tomorrow, well I'm sorry to say I don't think it is quite ready for the main page yet, I am about the only person who has not yet stamped my individuality on it - where I ask is the sun-kissed prose? I'll go and have a fiddle with it in a minute. Congratulation though, very clever! - is it a true story?

Oh yes. here is something I made when I was feeling bored this morning - clever isn't it - you may want to hand them out? I don't suppose you know how I could incorporate it into my signature? I love the cut and thrust of politics, just like being back in the old homeland at election time!!!

Take care! Giano 21:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Great to see the fire of london on the main page - I passed the monument this weekend whilst trying to find my way accros london - it's pitifully lost (like I was), surrounded by some really bad office buildings, hard to imagine it used to have the best views of london. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I must try and look for that monument sometime as well. I have a vague memory of being shown it on a school trip, but I doubt I'd be able to find it now. Carcharoth 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, you can't easily miss it if you come out of the main entrance of Monument tube station. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

D'OH!! Hey, I see you can climb to the top of it! Maybe Misplaced Pages would like a picture of the view from the top? :-) Carcharoth 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• I found out this week the real reason why Bobwhite Quail are no longer heard on summer evenings down here in the south is not overhunting by rednecks and vice presidents of the United States, but, instead, because of fire ants. Quail are ground nest birds, and the fire ants are killing them out, so they're almost never found in the wild anymore. Congratulations on getting the fire done, and well done, despite the fire ants. (And thanks a ton for looking in on my own creepy crawlies.) Geogre 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just coming to post my own congratulations and saw that somebody already beat me to it. Well, congratulations anyway. --*Kat* 05:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kat. :-) ALoan, if I'd had the slightest idea where anything is in London, where would the challenge have been? Believe me, I could miss it. Bishonen | talk 06:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

Now I get it.

Ohhhhhhhhhhh yeah. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh? Is/was there a problem? Well, besides the impression I was under that I'd posted a "request for clarification from the Committee". It seems to be generating a non-Committee chat thread instead. Bishonen | talk 06:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

I added a new threaded comment as per your request (probably!). El_C 09:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(To clarify -- I had forgotten all about Giano's name change, and had been mystified until your request for clarification by the suggestion that he was somehow disfranchised in the ArbCom elections.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well

I'm sorry that you regard my comment as unseemly, but I've come to regard Giano's behavior in much the same fashion. I wish only to know if you regard his entire statement there as appropriate given the context. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He's expressing bitterness. And you're telling him he obviously doesn't mean it, because if he did he would change his username? You think he's joking or something? Trolling? And that it's for you to tell him to change the account name he's been contributing under? "Oh, just create some reincarnation or sock or something"? That's a very contemptuous proposal. I find it shocking. In bad taste. Unseemly. Bishonen | talk 12:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

No, I'm telling him that he's being immoderate in his comments. Allow me to explain why. Let me preface this by noting that I admire his contributions to the article space.

I have no doubt that he's very bitter, but that does not give him the right to remind us of that in every public forum. Every time he comments on an admin action he finds it necessary to remind us that he dislikes admins in general. He'll probably work in a snide remark about IRC too (like that lovely homophobic box further up the page). Now, Carnildo blocked him almost a year ago. Apparently the slur wasn't severe enough to make him leave altogether. No, it wasn't too severe a burden until that nasty affair with Tony Sidaway and the arbitration case, a case in which Giano faced no sanction or reprimand (quite a feat these days). He scrambled his password and killed access to the email account, which isn't all that uncommon when one wants to leave--except that he came back. We deal with cases like this all the time. Someone recently got adminship under a new account name, and he wasn't the first. Now, the nastiness in the block log isn't his fault--neither is the nastiness in mine, not that anyone ever cared to look. However, the actions that he took to lose access to his account were his, and his alone. That it would even be on the table for Brion to personally address this mess is incredible--I can think of no other case in which so many people have bent over backwards to help someone. Even more incredible, Giano's two main opponents in that case, Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin, have withdrawn from Misplaced Pages.

I don't think that it's too much to ask, on the balance of things, that Giano start treating other people with respect and that he realize how well he's been treated, when it's all said and done. Every time I see him on the noticeboard or elsewhere, making snide remarks about people who've done him to wrong and re-opening old wounds, I ask why his behavior couldn't be on the level of his article contributions. Civility isn't just being on the welcoming committee or couching one's words in soft language, it's demonstrating that you have respect for other contributors on this project and value their input.

One final matter. I don't appreciate having words put in my mouth. I never called him a sockpuppet or any such thing--I simply observed that if he wanted to avoid the "taint" in Giano's block log, he shouldn't have called his new account "Giano II." This seems to me a commonsense observation and frankly I don't understand the reaction it provoked. Mackensen (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that Thatcher131 removed the thread. I'm sorry that bad feeling still exist between some of the Best and Brightest Wikipedians... Let me know it I can be helpful in any way. Take Care, FloNight 13:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't comment on Mackensen's comments, other than to say my name is mine, and I quite like it. I do not like being accused of hate speech. I resent those that think it is nothing. Finally, ("like that lovely homophobic box further up the page") calling someone a "fairy" means someone is considered "lightweight". Do you want me to spell out the meaning of "lightweight" or do you think you can successfully work that one out all by yourself? Giano 13:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• PS: I see we even have an article Misplaced Pages:WikiFairy perhaps Mackensen would like to go and read it, before accusing people of being homophobic! Giano 13:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Go away, Giacomo. Don't you see it can never be? You dislike admins, I dislike non-admins—oh cruel fate! Bishonen | talk 13:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

• I don't get why anyone should care whether Giano II is feeling bitter. The comment on RFAR was jocular, in my view, and this allegation that it was opening old wounds is a thing I can't understand. Giano didn't talk about how much he dislikes admins (and I don't know where he's done that in general...some of his best friends are admins, etc.). I've never read anything but disliking administrators who get egomaniacal, and a lot of us have written against those folks. Giano has requested the clearing of the block log since the day of the block, and for very good reasons. It's easily done, but, apparently, there are so many people who have put their pride on the line that there is opposition to removing a comment that everyone (except Carnildo) has said was a terrible mistake and factually incorrect. People are acting on personalities and saying that they're doing so because Giano is acting on personalities. We'll never get anywhere that way. Also, the "homophobic" is yet another insult, and a very serious one. If Giano were as bitter as he's accused of being, he could get pretty ticked off by being accused of homophobia here. Geogre 13:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the length of fairy (disambiguation), it is rather extreme to assume or assert that "IRC Fairy" it is homophobic. I will never look at a fairy cake the same way again. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Let us not spoil Bishonen's lovely day, with all this talk of "little people", both RL and Wiki-friends know I am not homophobic. I have to say that the alternate meaning for fairy had not crossed my mind until it crossed Mackensen's. Is a "fairy cake" the same as an "angel cake"? - all light weight confections of little nutritional value Giano 14:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Where I come from fairy, in that context, means something very specific. I fail to see how I was to assume it meant cake, or some such, especially given Giano's previous unkind remarks about IRC. I find this all very mysterious. I don't think I'm going to profit much by continuing here in this discussion, although I do appreciate that so many of you took time out of your day to tell me that I was wrong, that my concerns was misplaced, and that on the whole I was being unreasonable. Some of you were even kind enough to do so without being flippant. I thank you for that. I won't waste my time or yours trying to make you see something that you've decided doesn't exist. Good day. Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you understand "fairy" as being homophobic, at least in that specific context (I won't even bother with the gay blade or the gay cavalier) but I am also sure that Giano did not have the slightest intention of being homophobic. I am sure he was being insulting in other ways about lightweight IRC weenies, but not homophobic. Sometimes a fairy is just a fairy. (The cakes are light and sweet, you see.) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No it's not its because they are made of sponge and have little sponge wings between the pink icing sugar - where were you on your kid's 2nd and 3rd bithday parties? - hiding on the golf course I suppose. Giano 14:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be a butterfly cake. Also compare angel cake, which is a type of layer cake. Now I am feeling hungry. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah hah! We don't call them that around here, but cupcakes are indeed light and sweet. I appreciate the clarification. Mackensen (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ALoan. If I were to call someone an IRC fairy, I would mean that the person is a lightweight, that the person is an airy nothing, not that the person is homosexual. Given the percentage of Wikipedians who are homosexual and the fact that no one can know and fewer than none should care whether the person at the other keyboard has a tab with beefcake or cheesecake open, making a gay bashing remark on Misplaced Pages would be really weird. Geogre 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Beefcake I understand, but cheesecake? Is there some subtle heterophobic humour that I do not follow? (Nudge nudge; say no more.) I could also mention twinkies in this connection.

I agree with the sentiment, but tell that to User:Francs2000. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Cheesecake" for "revealing photos of women" predates "beefcake" (which isn't a cake of any sort at all), and I think it comes from the 1940's, when "cheesecake photos" were used as pin-ups for WW2 servicemen. I'm not sure where the actual cheese cake went. Geogre 16:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Geogre - do you have reference for this? I'm not actually saying I think you have made it up, in so many words, but a source would be nice. I notice Twinkie does not cite its sources, or should I say "sauces" (OK, don't all die laughing at once) - who on earth would by a cake called a Twinkie? At least that's one export you Americans spared us - I actually thought (à la Mackensen) Twinky was something to with gay culture, good think I never asked any of my gay friends if they were Twinkies - I must be thinking of something else entirely, I think I'm getting too old for all this, I shall continue to call a spade a spade and have done with it, my children keep texting me in some reverse/abbreviated/obscure language, so that I have to phone them to see what they want. Old age is not any fun. Giano 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

From the OED, 2. Also cheesecake. slang (orig. U.S.). Display of the female form, esp. in photographs, advertisements, etc., in the interest of sex-appeal; female sexual attractiveness. Also attrib. (Cf. beefcake.) 1934 Time 17 Sept. 30/2 Tabloid and Heartsmen go after ‘cheesecake’leg-pictures of sporty females. 1942 Time 24 Aug. 4/1 The supreme Empress of Cheesecake, the very Marlene Dietrich,..was fittingly crowned by the Treasury as the champion bond seller. (Beefcake US slang orig. 1949 in Amer. Speech (1954) XXIX. 282 Alan Ladd has a beefabout ‘*beefcake’, the new Hollywood trend toward exposing the male chest.) Thatcher131 17:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See the fourth paragraph of pin-up girl. Newyorkbrad 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• and what are you doing reading Pin-up girl when everyone else is beavering away writing this encyclopedia? You seem to know the page very well. Giano 18:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you asked for a reference and I brought you a reference, within the pages of this selfsame encyclopedia, as opposed to my rivals who were forced to resort to external, and therefore inferior, sources of information. Asking someone to do something and then scolding him when he does it is considered entrapment in these parts. I won't comment on your use of the term "beavering", either. Newyorkbrad 02:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• As a member of the most beautiful nation on earth, I don't think it will catch on La Loren and Lollobrigidaas torta di formaggio I think not. I'm now killing myself, I was just loking for an American actress to liken amusingly, I found one, Oh you North Americans never fail to amuse.......May West! Just leave the sophistication to us OK? Giano 17:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Most beautiful nation on earth? Those dowdy pisanas calling their menfolk home with a rolling-pin weapon? The most beautiful actress in history was Dutch, but I'll take Lana Turner and Ava Gardner (who was also extremely intelligent and a southerner). This is not even to approach Ingrid Bergman and other Swedes. As for cheesecake, what I didn't want to say was that it was a reference to the creamy texture of the woman's thigh, but the OED made that clear enough without my being rude. Geogre 18:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Southern boy, you ever bin to Italy - have you even clicked on May West? Giano 18:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't click on it, as I figured it was the ever-popular spelling redirect to Mae West. As for Twinkies, I haven't the vaguest idea why that has become a popular term in gay culture, unless gay culture is easily amused. (No, never been to Italy, but I did go to the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge once.) Geogre 18:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The slang term is twink (gay slang). The connection, or not, with twinkie seems tenuous. Carcharoth 02:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's Ingrid Bergman, all my life people have been saying how beautiful Ingmar Bergman was and I could never see it. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ingrid will not depress you. Geogre 18:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes Geogre, and don't try to curry favour by bringing the Swedes into this, because Bishonen agrees with me, besides which I suggest you sheck out your facts Signora Rossellini like most Swedes could not resist the animal magnetism of an Italian! Giano

OMG, turn my back once and a baked goods and creamy females party breaks out on my page. Yes, Giacomo, we have discussed that, haven't we, as unlikely as it sounds... hmm... at some aeroporto, presumably. Ingmar Bergman may be getting a little past it, Mcginnly, but you should have seen him when I were a slip of a girl. Bishonen | talk 18:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, but I think we need to lay off the carb-laden baked goods and return to the beefcake, please! How about some Cary Grant or James Dean or maybe even Jimmy Dean. Well, of course one twinkie isn't too bad. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Immodest Main Page remark

Not to boast or anything, ahem, but run while you can, teh Zillas are coming to put the whole kaboodle in their pockets. The revered Mumzilla wrote the front page article of the day on sv.wiki.  :-D Bishonen | talk 14:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

And we all hope it doesn't go missing and that it suffers fewer mechanical troubles than its subject. :-) Geogre 15:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

RSVP

Giano 19:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Me? Honestly, boys. Bishonen | talk 19:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

I have no idea what you are talking about. Giano 19:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ipse dixit

Aristotle, on M.A. students:

Since a young man "is apt to be swayed by his passions, he will derive no benefit from a study whose aim is practical and not speculative. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or in character, for the young man's disqualification is not a matter of time, but due to the fact that feeling or passion rules his life and directs all his desires." -- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics i.

That's how I feel, anyway. Geogre 15:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The black pig under the linden trees (short rant)

I finally got around to posting a first version of the article on Zum schwarzen Ferkel (I noticed somebody else editing Dagny Juel and posting an article on Adolf Paul, and I obviously couldn't let anyone beat me to writing an article I had, after all, been planning to write for a while...), and three minutes later some new page patroler comes slapping a {{notability}} tag on it. (I mean, I have on occasion tagged articles myself, but this one clearly establishes the notability of the place). I'm just wondering how long time it will take before somebody will put a {{db-group}} tag on the page. Sigh. Upp◦land 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why take the risk of dialogue on the talk page, when you can slap a tag and run along? My favorite is "cleanup" because someone couldn't understand a sentence that had a subordinate clause in it. Geogre 23:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What a fantastic article, Uppland! Since Strindberg frequented the place, may I put a WikiProject Theatre tag on it? *big grin* And Dagny Juel is equally interesting! God, I love the marvelous things to be found here! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and sure you can (although I'm sure it will be joined by another dozen vaguely related project tags soon, as that is what seems to be happening on all article talkpages). There is still some more work to be done here. I need to put in footnotes, and there are more names to be added. There is a nice image of the place (the one shown here) that seems to come from Adolf Paul's book, but I am uncertain about the copyright. It was, as far as I can understand, first published in 1914, but I don't know who made it. If it was Paul himself, he lived too long (until 1943) for it to have lost protection yet, unless there is some "published-before-19XX" clause that can be used. There are also paintings and drawings by Munch, but they are also still under copyright (another sigh), as he died only in 1944. Upp◦land 06:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fruit Bowl

And I mean fruit in a totally literal way. Will you be my friend? El_C 12:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Awwww! Will I be your friend? I'll go to Niagara falls with you, Elsie! Have some bread and cheese with that! Bishonen | talk 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

User Page Targeted for Deletion

Bish, please note the following: I've nominated your user subpage User:WBardwin/Chapter for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Once upon a time.... —Doug Bell  02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC I assert that user pages, under Misplaced Pages guidelines, are private property and, if they violate no rules or standards, should not be deleted or disturbed by others. I would appreciate your opinion in my disagreement with this administrator. Thanks. WBardwin 06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh

Previously when we talked, the issue at hand was my commentary about Misplaced Pages and specifically mentioning someone by name. The likes of what I have currently posted was not mentioned. I am not aware of rules that I have broken by what I posted, but as I am being warned it now makes things quite clear. I would like to know the specific rules on the issue so I can avoid such things in the future. Alyeska 05:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, its not very pleasant being threatened over things I was not aware of. Generally speaking its better to warn of rules violations. Stating you would lock my user page is in itself a direct threat. What I did hurt no one and it should be obvious that it wasn't done with the intent of breaking any rules. So I would appreciate a less hostile attitude since I wasn't trying to be hostile with you. Thats also why I am asking for a link to the rules your talking about. I keep getting these warnings but I don't recall ever being given a rules link and its hard to follow rules when you don't know them. Alyeska 06:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, generally speaking it's better not to troll and not to waste my time. Can you remember the times before you became a rulebot, Ayeda? Try to recollect that mindset and act according to it on wiki, and you can't go far wrong. There is no possibility for Misplaced Pages policy to cover in advance all the dumb or offensive things users can think of doing, such as posting different kinds of offensive content on their userpage. The specific policy on that is Misplaced Pages:Userpage: "libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". The general guidelines whose spirit you're supposed to follow are Misplaced Pages:Common sense and Misplaced Pages:Don't be a dick. Please read them in good faith. Bishonen | talk 08:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Newsflash: the rules apply to you too. No Personal Attacks! |||||| E. Sn0 =31337=  09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, trollfest on my page, cute. Run along, dears, or would you like a formal warning first? Bishonen | talk 09:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Wow, more personal attacks. How about you lead by example instead? |||||| E. Sn0 =31337=  09:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. You see that door at the back? Just hold my hand and I'll lead you there. Here we are. Out you go. Mind the trashcans. . And this is a formal warning, since you insist: Stop hanging round my page trying to sniff out personal attacks. Just leave before you get in trouble. See this recent portrait? I'm actually nothing like as kindly as I look in it. Bishonen | talk 09:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, I am not trying to troll nor waste your time. You posted a warning to me and I didn't know the rules on the issue hence my request. You should have noticed that I immediately removed the material you commented on as well as something else you did not. I did that in good faith to follow the rules. I admit to being irritated over this, but I am trying here and I came to you in good faith to find out just what I did wrong. Your cited rules mostly talk about libeling people, not organizations. Ubisoft is an organization. However, I do notice the second aspect of the quote from Jimbo, and I agree that going for an entire paragraph on the subject was pushing things a little far. So in the end I now see what you were warning me about, acknowledge, and agree. Thank you. Alyeska 17:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sno, knock it off. I told you last night not to do something like this. This was between Bishonen and myself and I find the situation to have ended properly. If you had bothered to do a little digging, you might have noticed Bishonen is someone we can agree with. Bishonen is a supporter of userspace. So stop making enemies of people that should be friends. Alyeska 17:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Aly and Bishonen. Sometimes I get too hotheaded for my own good. I apologize.

Maybe it's time for me to find some vandals to go Godzilla on instead of each other. :) |||||| E. Sn0 =31337=  19:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping me out in the recent dispute. :) Everybody else (myself included) seems to be insane here.--Certified.Gangsta 23:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, Boney. :-)