This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 19:17, 19 February 2013 (→I'm gaining on you: ORLY?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:17, 19 February 2013 by Bishonen (talk | contribs) (→I'm gaining on you: ORLY?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Hello, well-spoken reader. There's no need to post "Talkback" or "You've got mail" templates here. I watch my e-mail, and also your talkpage if I've posted on it. (Click here if you want another compliment.)
MOS and ArbCom
I welcome your offer to post a request for arbitration as a neutral editor in the recent AE matter.
I see several advantages to this.
1) New eyes. Long-time participants may able to express the issues more succinctly to someone who has not already formed an opinion on an issue. Indeed, this is the much of the real work of an ArbCom case, providing a forum for the exchange of ideas between parties that is necessary to any resolution.
2) It is simply too dangerous for any involved editor to do so.
—Neotarf (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I'm probably treating something important too flippantly, but when I saw the section title "MOS and ArbCom", I thought to myself: That's probably a good working definition of Hell. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- LOL. To me, it's " and ArbCom". ;-) -- Ohconfucius 02:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are new arbs now, the "new eyes" principle may mean fresh insights from that group as well. —Neotarf (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- LOL. To me, it's " and ArbCom". ;-) -- Ohconfucius 02:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Glad to hear from you, Neotarf. I was in fact thinking along the lines that I might be able to express myself more succinctly, yeah… and with luck without myself getting caught in the vast sticky webs of MOS. (What was the name of the spider monster in the Lord of the Rings, Floquenbeam?) But Sandstein has responded that he intends "later this week" to post a request for clarification about appellate procedure for people who don't accept discretionary sanctions warnings. I'll wait for that. There may turn out to be a simpler way than RFAR, or rather, the arbs may invent an appellate procedure in response to Sandstein, because I don't think anything like that has come up before. Or they may stonewall again, no doubt. Again, I'm willing to start an RFAR if that's what remains. I'd want to hear what SMcCandlish thinks about it first, though. Bishonen | talk 11:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC).
- Ungoliant or Shelob, depending on if you're a First Age kind of person, or a Third Age kind of person. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Shelob sounds about right. "Bloated and grown fat with endless brooding on her feasts, weaving webs of shadow; for all living things were her food, and her vomit darkness." If I do request anything related to MOS, I shall have to be fleet of foot. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC).
- Thank you. This seems to be the appropriate policy page. But Shelob, ha ha, no, the MOS is not alive, more like DNA. The bots and gnomes use bits of it to polish the 'pedia. And like DNA it is subject to repair and mutation. But fleetness of foot, yes. Even at its best, MOS is not for the faint-hearted. —Neotarf (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Shelob sounds about right. "Bloated and grown fat with endless brooding on her feasts, weaving webs of shadow; for all living things were her food, and her vomit darkness." If I do request anything related to MOS, I shall have to be fleet of foot. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC).
- Sandstein delivers: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Discretionary_sanctions_appeals_procedure — HaugenErik (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right. Thanks. Most of the arb comments so far seem well-reasoned. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC).
- I am sorry, but "Even at its best, MOS is not for the faint-hearted" makes no sense whatsoever. All of Misplaced Pages is by necessity equally welcoming of all participants. If the current climate at MOS is not thus, that needs to be changed immediately. Apteva (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Er.. OK, Apteva. If you think you achieve something by replying in this place to a comment from nine days ago, not made by me, be my guest. Bishonen | talk 18:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
- I am sorry, but "Even at its best, MOS is not for the faint-hearted" makes no sense whatsoever. All of Misplaced Pages is by necessity equally welcoming of all participants. If the current climate at MOS is not thus, that needs to be changed immediately. Apteva (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right. Thanks. Most of the arb comments so far seem well-reasoned. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC).
- Ungoliant or Shelob, depending on if you're a First Age kind of person, or a Third Age kind of person. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Crat LOL
Well played :) -- Avi (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hehe, thanks for the attention. And a nice and concise comment, Avi! (See what I did there?) Bishonen | talk 17:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC).
User:Klbog1987
Can you please block him permanently? I saw where you already levied a 24-hour block on him per an ANI discussion. This user repeatedly adds false and/or unverifiable information into articles and templates. Every single time, without fail, another editor has left him messages regarding his behavior he has blanked his talk page without (a) responding, and (b) altered his behavior. His incompetence is staggering. For the good of this online Encyclopedia, please get rid of him. Thanks in advance. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- What a coincidence, I was just checking out the user's edits. But I decided not to act, because I have so very, very little understanding of sports-related articles. Pretty much all the editing on them is a deep dark mystery to me. I think your concerns are very probably well-founded, but could you please take them either to a more sports-minded admin, if you know such a one, or to the incidents noticeboard? P.S., in either case, you'd probably like to give a link to the earlier ANI thread. Here it is. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC).
- I've asked User:Zagalejo. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- <teach>For your diff guide: Try this for a solution that uses whichever http or https server you're on and works with wp:popups.</teach> --RexxS (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rex. I realise that's simpler for the nerd population, but it's not simple in the sense of "simple diff and link guide". It's more mysterious for us lamers. I'll leave you or darwinfish to put it into the Complete diff and link guide, which is where I think it belongs. Unless it's already there..? I don't remember. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC).
- <teach>For your diff guide: Try this for a solution that uses whichever http or https server you're on and works with wp:popups.</teach> --RexxS (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've asked User:Zagalejo. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
re: "spam ban"
hmmmm ... I guess I coulda linked that to WP:SPAM, but meh. Yea, I should know that anything "understated", "overstated", "humorous", "dry", or "sarcastic" simply doesn't play out well in the written genre. Your point is taken, and I stand corrected. I humbly appear here to accept my well deserved "trout". As we are approaching the Easter season, and it's Friday - I may as well make a meal of it though, so any "chips" or "fries" with that would be welcomed too. :-) — Ched : ? 12:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, Ched. It's just that the people who reckon up the results of ANI polls tend to go extremely formal about it (in self-defence, no doubt) — 'What exactly did that person support?' — and hence understated and overstated can both be risky. Here's your trout. Bishonen | talk 13:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
- Perhaps subconsciously in a je ne sais quoi fashion I felt there was an attractive lilt to the term "spam ban" .. :-D — Ched : ? 22:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Red wine with fish? Really? Risker (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- A classic in Norway, and I could easily fancy it myself. But this trout was uploaded by a Britisher so it does seem culturally incorrect. I presume we all remember the Bond scene, on a train, wasn't it? Anyway, the scene where the red wine with fish was such a help to him. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC).
- LOL <literally. And now my dog thinks I'm nuts>. Hey - I haz cooth; I just grabbed the wrong box. — Ched : ? 13:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Another atrocity
I have just been smartening up my beloved aunt to bring her more into line with how other editors want an eminent page to look and noticed some clot has, without warning, deleted two of the images - I believe one of them was uploaded by you, perhaps you could retrieve them. I really think this needs to happen quite quickly before she and the staff return from their yachting cruise in the Med and notice the defilement of the page. Giano 13:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- What a magnificent infobox! I can't seem to do anything about the redlinked images, but help should be on its way, please see Bishonen | talk 15:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
- also why can't I get the info box to display her neighbours ad cousins, all the other essential details of an informative info-box? Sometimes, I do really miss Jack!13:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- How do you mean? If you just edit the page as a whole, the editable infobox will be right at the top. Bishonen | talk 15:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
- also why can't I get the info box to display her neighbours ad cousins, all the other essential details of an informative info-box? Sometimes, I do really miss Jack!13:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm just headed off, so can't really help too much... but Miss Bish, try this link Worm(talk) 15:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Very nice fixes Worm; thank you. However, you have shrunk my magnificent info-box. I do think the size of the info-box should reflect the status of the subject. That way, some gnat with no attention span, won't even have to read the info-box, he will just know he's looking at an important person. Giano 15:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies! I hope my recent change goes some way to restoring your dear aunt's self worth. Worm(talk) 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Very nice fixes Worm; thank you. However, you have shrunk my magnificent info-box. I do think the size of the info-box should reflect the status of the subject. That way, some gnat with no attention span, won't even have to read the info-box, he will just know he's looking at an important person. Giano 15:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps some other clever tps can do something about the two redlinked images. I just don't understand how to get to look at the images themselves (yes, Writ Keeper, I know you have demonstrated it but I didn't get it that time either, sorry. :-() I can't see what the delete reason was either. The probably adorable baby picture File:CdeB4.jpg in the same
articlepage has the same problem also. (The fixes were mainly by Bishapod, Giano.) Bishonen | talk 16:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC).- Hmmm. Well, it looks like CdeB4.jpg is a derivative of File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1989-0322-506,_Adolf_Hitler,_Kinderbild.jpg. To see the image (as an admin), you just need to go to the undelete link and scroll to the bottom where it has the file history rather than the page history. If it's not been sorted by the next time I log on, I'll get them done :) If someone could find the original of the wedding party, I'd appreciate it though. Worm(talk) 16:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's much better Worm. Now, next. we must please the info-box crowd, so how can I add her neighbours, dearest and closest friends, hobbies, shoe size, vital statistics and medical history. I tried, but they won't display. Giano 16:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with that is the template the infobox uses; it doesn't have fields for things like neighbors, so they won't show up. Your best bet is probably to subst the template into the article and then add the fields by hand; you could also make a copy of the template and add the new fields in there, which would abstract the wikicode a bit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's much better Worm. Now, next. we must please the info-box crowd, so how can I add her neighbours, dearest and closest friends, hobbies, shoe size, vital statistics and medical history. I tried, but they won't display. Giano 16:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- well it won't be much of an info-box, if people are expected to actual read the article - people have busy lives and somc ecan't even read. Giano 16:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I've restored the baby picture, I can't for the life of me figure out why it was deleted. It says there's no source information, but the source was clearly stated on the information page. Oh well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm always having these problems - I think they have difficulties getting decent admins these days. Giano 16:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Awww, cute, thanks. As for sourced images getting deleted, in my experience that's just business as usual on Commons. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
- How terribly serendipitous, this popped up on my watchlist just above the Massacre of Glencoe so I had to have a look. Her ladyship's first great work brings to mind the Laird's distant adventures.... dave souza, talk 17:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think I had indeed already enjoyed the swashbuckling "Scrøtum where åre my bøøts" adventure. :-) Bishonen | talk 18:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
- I have returned from my sailing expedition and am gravely displeased! Who, precisely, is on charge of Info-Boxes on this encyclopaedia? You can all stop cowering Mrs Bishonen,put those trembling Bishopods back in their kennel . Just give me his name. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- In charge of infoboxes? Hmm. Err. …Floquenbeam ! That's it! Floquenbeam is almost certainly in charge of infoboxes! Bishonen | talk 21:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
- I have it on good authority that a certain James Wales (no relation to Wills or Harry) is ultimately in charge of Infooboxen. --RexxS (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's right, I am almost certainly in charge. In the near future, I plan on rolling out a new infobox that's the full width of the page, for use on all architectural articles. This "Cathy" person does not frighten me in the slightest, as I have complete inerrancy on my side. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have it on good authority that a certain James Wales (no relation to Wills or Harry) is ultimately in charge of Infooboxen. --RexxS (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- In charge of infoboxes? Hmm. Err. …Floquenbeam ! That's it! Floquenbeam is almost certainly in charge of infoboxes! Bishonen | talk 21:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
- I have returned from my sailing expedition and am gravely displeased! Who, precisely, is on charge of Info-Boxes on this encyclopaedia? You can all stop cowering Mrs Bishonen,put those trembling Bishopods back in their kennel . Just give me his name. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think I had indeed already enjoyed the swashbuckling "Scrøtum where åre my bøøts" adventure. :-) Bishonen | talk 18:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
- How terribly serendipitous, this popped up on my watchlist just above the Massacre of Glencoe so I had to have a look. Her ladyship's first great work brings to mind the Laird's distant adventures.... dave souza, talk 17:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I've restored the baby picture, I can't for the life of me figure out why it was deleted. It says there's no source information, but the source was clearly stated on the information page. Oh well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Wait. Someone is actually in charge of something around here? My my, I am most certainly very behind the times then. One question. Has anyone told the children yet? — Ched : ? 21:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, I am in charge here. Secondly, Mr Floquenbeam is now 'persona non grata' we shall not discuss him further. Now, regarding info-boxes - we don't want them do we? Despite this clever Giano and Signor Pondevaro have devised a solution that some twitter is now trying to underhandedly sink - so you all need to go an opine here. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi
As I wish not to interact with the IP from yesterday I would be happy if you could inform the IP that comments like this one at my talk page and this at the talk page of the Killing of Travis Alexander article is not appropriate. Especially since we were both told to let it go less then 24 hours ago. I dont know why the IP wants to keep on the personal conflict and some sort of smear campaign as I have had no interaction with the IP since yesterday. The IP is reacting to me asking for move-protection of the article in question after the latest move that I changed back today, something I think both you and me could agree is needed IF the name changes to the article continues to be done. I am tired of being attacked by this IP now especially since I have not interacted with it for some time. Thanks. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I really don't want to go down this road again...
- "Especially since we were both told to let it go less then 24 hours ago."
- And I have let it go; and haven't edited the article since or EVER moved the name. However, you have been involved in an edit war with ANOTHER user and then cited this as a reason to fully-protect the article. That is all I have issue with, and I stand by my remarks. Please just let it go and stop trying to ensure every aspect of the article is to your POV. Thanks again. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly there are no edit war as I simply reverted back the name change to the consensus name change of Killing of made by user MaxxFordham. Secondly I can edit the article and so can you, I will never stop edit articles just because you tell me to or dont want me to 87.232.1.48. Dont add personal attacks at my talk page and at the talk page of the article in question again. This is my only response to you and I will not respond further to your attempts at smearing my name. Lastly I ask you again to let your personal vendetta against me that you have for whatever reason go. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am in absolute shock here. I don't want to stop you editing the article; You want to stop everyone editing it, that's my point! You say: "I can edit the article and so can you, I will never stop edit articles just because you tell me to or dont want me to"... but it is you that want to get the article full-protection and stop everyone from editing it, that's what I'm saying. You cite problems that you're mainly responsible for, it's mind blowing... Anyway, very rich claiming I'm doing personal attacks when you have constantly accused me of POV-pushing and have a personal vendetta. Come on. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here's a thought - both of you go find something completely unrelated to edit for a bit, stay off each others talk pages, have a cup of tea - and stop bickering for a while. Then, a few days/weeks down the road - consider assuming the best of the other editor, and see if you can calmly, quietly, and maturely reach some sort of compromise and/or consensus on whatever seems to be the issue. — Ched : ? 19:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree fully with your suggestion. And yes, I had already moved on and not interacted with the editor when it contacted me again in a combative tone. And also left an insulting message at the Killing of Travis Alexander articles talk page. Me reverting the name change back to the consensus of Killing of.. was needed and Bishonen agrees with that I do hope. Anyway, if the IP is willing to let his vendetta go against me, and that he removes the insulting message at the talk page of the article, and promise not to attack me at my talk page anymore I will have nothing to respond too and thereby problem solved. It is really simple, dont contact me at my talk page and I will not contact you and dont write about me personally/insulting at any articles talk pages. Hope that is agreeable.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I hope this cooled down while I was away; thanks for timely post, Ched. BabbaQ, I just declined your protection request on WP:RFP, and nobody else is likely to be prepared to protect the article at this point either, since I only recently unprotected it and nothing much has gone down since. As I said on article talk, I will indeed move-protect if it's moved again. (Admin talkpage stalkers, please do that for me if there's a post about it here while I'm asleep!) But I believe in minimalism where protection is concerned. If/when there's consensus for a new title, people shouldn't have to request unprotection, especially considering that the unfolding events may make that happen pretty soon. But yes, you certainly did right to revert the name back to "Killing of..", BabbaQ; I'm sorry if it sounded like I was complaining on article talk of your action there, because that wasn't what I meant at all. Bishonen | talk 21:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC).
- That's fine Bishonen you are completely right and I trust that you will moveprotect the article if necessary. And I hope you do understand my frustration with these two comments , directed towards me by the editor IP. My only wish now is for the IP to let go of his evidently strong and steamingly angry feelings towards me so that we can go on with other edits and don't bother each other. I feel bad to drag you into this again, I do apologize but the user continues to want to have contact with me and seem to be in a combative mood towards me for whatever reason. Thank you for your good work and nice way to handle this Bishonen.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- What I mean is that the IPs reaction was a major overreaction and not appropriate in tone. And I think that the insulting comment to my talk page was unecessary to say the least. But now that you have taken care of it I guess no further actions are needed. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Bishonen, glad it's all resolved now. Maybe my reaction was a bit over the top; but I would not have reacted like this had it been a once off. It is just constant protection seeking from BabbaQ for stuff he initiates and I feel it would be damaging to wiki to block articles where there is no risk of vandalism, which seems to be his intent time and time again. I hope this is the end of it all, and what to apologise for wasting your time. It frustrates me when BabbaQ accuses me of personal attacks and that I "continues to want to have contact with.." him as that is utter rubbish, and it is his seemingly strong agenda to get the article blocked that I am against (particularly as he contributes dramatically to conflicts with numerous editors, and then cites these as reasons!) Regards, 87.232.1.48 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please let me know how I "initiated it".. as user MaxxFordham was the one who once again changed the article name against consensus and left a message at the articles talk page calling me "dumb", and may I say you seemed to really like and encourage that statement. Also that I requested protection was perhaps not the best as I should have contacted Bishonen, but that still does not give you the right to instantly go on the attack mode against me both at my talk page and the articles talk page. If you had contacted me with a polite tone it would have been resolved and no egos would have been hurt. Even better you should have contacted Bishonen and asked him in a polite tone to look at the request, instead you contacted me in a comabtive tone and you obviously wanted me to react by confronting you which I have decided not to do. Learn from your mistake and I will learn from mine. I will not respond any further to this discussion as it is over and dealt with properly by Bishonen. And once again IP let go of your heated emotions that you evidently holds towards me. I also dont appreciate your total lie and slander concerning your ludicrous comment (particularly as he contributes dramatically to conflicts with numerous editors, and then cites these as reasons!) towards me, if you have problems with me atleast dont make up lies. Just let go of the hate and the wanting to contact me constantly. And don't bite me again. Hope you will be able to move on now because I will not take lightly on being attacked by you again at my talk page.Anyway, I will not respond any further to this discussion as it is over and dealt with properly by Bishonen.That's all Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- "no egos would have been hurt..." I see why you've been so hostile to even the slightest criticism now, and I apologies for hurting your ego. Dear God. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was actually refering to you by that comment. IP ... if you give hostility you get hostility. Learn from your mistakes. Now move on and please stop contacting me even though I know you probably want to. Goodbye hopefully forever my friend :)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please let me know how I "initiated it".. as user MaxxFordham was the one who once again changed the article name against consensus and left a message at the articles talk page calling me "dumb", and may I say you seemed to really like and encourage that statement. Also that I requested protection was perhaps not the best as I should have contacted Bishonen, but that still does not give you the right to instantly go on the attack mode against me both at my talk page and the articles talk page. If you had contacted me with a polite tone it would have been resolved and no egos would have been hurt. Even better you should have contacted Bishonen and asked him in a polite tone to look at the request, instead you contacted me in a comabtive tone and you obviously wanted me to react by confronting you which I have decided not to do. Learn from your mistake and I will learn from mine. I will not respond any further to this discussion as it is over and dealt with properly by Bishonen. And once again IP let go of your heated emotions that you evidently holds towards me. I also dont appreciate your total lie and slander concerning your ludicrous comment (particularly as he contributes dramatically to conflicts with numerous editors, and then cites these as reasons!) towards me, if you have problems with me atleast dont make up lies. Just let go of the hate and the wanting to contact me constantly. And don't bite me again. Hope you will be able to move on now because I will not take lightly on being attacked by you again at my talk page.Anyway, I will not respond any further to this discussion as it is over and dealt with properly by Bishonen.That's all Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Bishonen, glad it's all resolved now. Maybe my reaction was a bit over the top; but I would not have reacted like this had it been a once off. It is just constant protection seeking from BabbaQ for stuff he initiates and I feel it would be damaging to wiki to block articles where there is no risk of vandalism, which seems to be his intent time and time again. I hope this is the end of it all, and what to apologise for wasting your time. It frustrates me when BabbaQ accuses me of personal attacks and that I "continues to want to have contact with.." him as that is utter rubbish, and it is his seemingly strong agenda to get the article blocked that I am against (particularly as he contributes dramatically to conflicts with numerous editors, and then cites these as reasons!) Regards, 87.232.1.48 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- What I mean is that the IPs reaction was a major overreaction and not appropriate in tone. And I think that the insulting comment to my talk page was unecessary to say the least. But now that you have taken care of it I guess no further actions are needed. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's fine Bishonen you are completely right and I trust that you will moveprotect the article if necessary. And I hope you do understand my frustration with these two comments , directed towards me by the editor IP. My only wish now is for the IP to let go of his evidently strong and steamingly angry feelings towards me so that we can go on with other edits and don't bother each other. I feel bad to drag you into this again, I do apologize but the user continues to want to have contact with me and seem to be in a combative mood towards me for whatever reason. Thank you for your good work and nice way to handle this Bishonen.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I hope this cooled down while I was away; thanks for timely post, Ched. BabbaQ, I just declined your protection request on WP:RFP, and nobody else is likely to be prepared to protect the article at this point either, since I only recently unprotected it and nothing much has gone down since. As I said on article talk, I will indeed move-protect if it's moved again. (Admin talkpage stalkers, please do that for me if there's a post about it here while I'm asleep!) But I believe in minimalism where protection is concerned. If/when there's consensus for a new title, people shouldn't have to request unprotection, especially considering that the unfolding events may make that happen pretty soon. But yes, you certainly did right to revert the name back to "Killing of..", BabbaQ; I'm sorry if it sounded like I was complaining on article talk of your action there, because that wasn't what I meant at all. Bishonen | talk 21:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC).
Update: more moves
The article has been moved again, indeed several times, by the same user (not one of the people posting above). But since all the disruption is coming from a single user, I have resisted the temptation to protect and instead simply warned that person strongly on their talkpage. Bishonen | talk 09:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC).
Yes, one single user: babbaq.
MaxxFordham (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
To Bishonen
To distance this comment from the discssion I would only like to thank you for showing patience with this situation. I will stand firm that I had no intention to have further contact with the IP and I hope this will be the end of our interaction. Hope you are not totally drained from this ;) thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Haha, no, but please disengage right now both of you. No more posts to or about each other on this page, please, or on each other's usertalk for that matter. Keep discussion of the article on article talk — completely without personal remarks, please. Bishonen | talk 23:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC).
- Haha, I have every intention to do so. Hopefully the IP does so too.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Your Comments on My Talk Page About the Above Article We're Talking About
Well, "Maxx Fordham" is just my user name. So if you're going to call me that, or just the first part of it, that's fine, all right. But just be aware that that's not my real name (as most of these aren't) even if it sounds like a real name. (I used 2 xs to try to make it look fake on purpose.) My real first name is Mike.
I have some questions for you about all this:
Why are you supposedly an administrator here? How do the Misplaced Pages executives decide who supposedly deserve that "badge of honor"?
The points you tried to make in my page have some problems:
1. No, I don't *watch* the talk page over there; I only have visited there recently a few times, enough to have noticed a few things being said on it.
2. No, not all of what you're calling "disruptiveness" is coming from me. (Well, not really any disruptiveness from me, even though you might be calling what I was doing from me.) Don't you remember a user named babbaq who was causing disruption there?
3. Hmm... "concensus," huh? Well tell me something there, Joe: Define "concensus." Since when has there already supposedly been a "concensus" there if it doesn't include me and my points?
4. Why is there such a big deal against naming the article with "Homicide"? babbaq Didn't just like "death," and it seemed that s/he didn't like anything except "murder." How was just "killing" satisfactory then? And if neither "killing" nor "death" are murder, but s/he sort of accepts "killing of" now, then why not "homicide," even though that has even more meaning of "one human being killed by another" (closer to murder, but still not quite) than just "killing of..." does (because industrial accidents and animals also kill people, and that's not homicide)? And why wouldn't that satisfy the other Wikians arguing about it too, since it still doesn't mean what murder means (add "...for an unjust reason")?
MaxxFordham (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- 1. You seem to have had plenty of opportunity to notice the article talkpage discussions, including my link to ANI. You corrected (mistakenly) a supposed spelling error here within minutes of performing the move! And the IP put a link to the discussion here on my page on your talk. When I saw that, I was seriously tempted to take it in lieu of a warning and block you on the spot.
- 2. No, I don't see BabbaQ doing that.
- 3. Please see WP:CONSENSUS. It's used in a bit of a special sense on Misplaced Pages. It doesn't mean everybody agrees; if it did, every article would be locked in eternal disagreement. Not many people were involved here, but the others did come to an agreement suitable to the present situation with the court case. You seem to have stopped discussing when they started to resolve it. Most significantly, you didn't even comment on Darkness Shines' move to "Killing of..".
- 4. It may not be a big deal. I don't personally care what you call it.
- You're really on borrowed time. If I had seen it sooner, you would have been in big trouble over the rudeness of this post. For the process for becoming an admin, see WP:RFA. For me being an admin, see the admin list here. And don't call me Joe, Shirley. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC).
- I would just like to inform Bishonen that user Maxx has made changes to your latest post at his talk page. Again with the article name.BabbaQ (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm gaining on you
You may have ArbCom "in your pocket" but I have my very own MeatPuppet, a former ArbCom clerk, no less: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/KillerChihuahua (now unfortunately RevDel'd for no reason that I can see.) Next, I will get an Arb MeatPuppet, and then I too, shall slowly draw in each and every Arb until they are all in MY pocket! Mwah-hah-hah! (cue scary music) KillerChihuahua 16:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Dogs don't get to have pockets for good reason and I should know. --Rexx the Wonder Dog (wuf) 18:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's RevDel'd now? I read it before it was, haha, because I was alerted by ANI to your recent disgrace. Now who was it that reported Geogre and I were the same person... hmm... Hollow Wilerding, probably, in the early fourteenth century. That was a very elaborate report, with a lot of suspicious coincidences in time, oddly enough, as Geogre and I are in quite different timezones. That report on you wasn't nearly as impressive! Mere meatpuppetry! And if you're thinking of attempting to turn little Newyorkbrad from Bishzilla's Voice on ArbCom to yours (going yap! yap! I presume?), I can only advise you to "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold" except in Bishzilla's pocket. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC).