User talk:Bishonen

Saturday

7

September

16:08 UTC

				File:Animalibrí.gif
Bishonen is semi-retired.		The MONGO Ursus americanus.		The Giano flutterer.
File:Irpen reka.jpg
The Irpen river.		The Geogre flower.		The Arctic Balloon arctic balloon.

Bookmarks

articles ice fire emigration diffs and links moods bishzilla warning templates removing warnings non-apology apology

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

The El Commandante goldenchip.

OK?

Are you OK? Your emails are bouncing back? C'mon life is never that bad. Look at me! Wilipedia needs your insight, perceptivenes, intellect and wit? At least let us know you are still incommunicado. Giano (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It needs what? (What do you want to borrow?) I need a little time off, that's all. E-mail's a great way to savage somebody. Don't worry, Giacomo. It's only the Internet. It'll pass. Look at the wikibreak sunset photo, it's a bit like something by the Skagen painters. I'll be back in a few days. Bishonen | talk 21:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC).

A comment

I have posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence that is largely directed at you.

I disagree with your characterization that "George has not wheel-warred", but significantly the reason I disagree is more a semantic one than a factual one. We appear to have different conceptions of what defines a "wheel war". While I can't speak for him, this may relate to Sir Fozzie's opinion as well. Dragons flight (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Åse Kleveland

Wikinews is doing an interview with former Norwegian Culture Minister Åse Kleveland, and I would really like your input. Please, if you have time, think up some questions that we could ask Ms. Kleveland. The page for submissions is here. I'm going to be wrapping up the call for questions on Friday evening, so please get back to me ASAP. Hope everything is well with you! Mike H. Fierce! 03:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw you responded below, so I know you're there...can I get a response please? Mike H. Fierce! 17:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Trout/Rose

Is this what you had in mind? Tex (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Aahhh, very lovely. I confess I was secretly hoping somebody would take me up on it. You've done it perfectly. Now give yourself one! (Just the rose in your case.) Bishonen | talk 17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC).

Actually, I think it looks pretty silly. I just took two wiki pictures and slapped them together and drew a line for the stem. Someone will probably delete it soon, so enjoy it while you can! Tex (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See! Told ya they would be deleting it soon. Does anyone who watches this page know about image descriptions? Should I just say "I took two public domain pictures and manipulated them"??? Any help would be appreciated. Tex (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty well. Link to the images (I assume they're from Commons) in your description, and add what you have said above. Your PD release should be fine. The editor who put the notice on your page might be able to help too. Risker (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I only noticed the problem after reading your comment above and being curious why anyone would care to delete it. The first important point is to show us where those specific component images came from. Dragons flight (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to Risker and Dragons flight. Hopefully the new description will be OK. Sorry to be mucking up your page, Bish. Tex (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Long live the rose trout. Dragons flight (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Love the Rose Trout! Now may I have a picture of the little SirFozzie running away from Bishzilla, please?[1] Bishonen | talk 21:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC).

• And/or picture of little ArbCom eating worms? Zilla like this game ! [2] See little user properly intimidated here? [/Me breathe lightly on little Sir F, watch with interest as user start go brown round edges. Put gently down on floor.] Now... run! bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC).

Ha! I'd love to come up with some more pictures for the 'Zilla, but I'm off to celebrate the 4th. If no other creative-types beat me to it, I'll try to find your requested pics on Monday. Have a great weekend, Bishonen. Tex (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Risking being cursed for saying I ruined the layout, pictures, and plan...

I had to point out a moment I'm proud of: the last exchange on talk:The Dunciad. I actually could have used that question as a major teaching point, but I don't think the interlocutor wanted to learn. Geogre (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You're one of the good guys

I've withdrawn my overhasty remarks about you and apologise for being angry and frustrated. [3] I still have enormous respect for you. It's a shame I can't share your opinion on one matter but you're one of the good guys. See Dbachmann's comment there too. I hope there are no hard feelings and that you can understand from the entire context of the incident why I was so het up. Best. --Folantin (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Peace. Bishonen | talk 16:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC).

Re: Rfar, etc

Yeah, I saw your comment. Sorry if I sounded like I was hyperboling it. I'm not trying to knock anyone's contributions, least of all you guys, but I'm not sure exactly where you got that impression. If you point it out, I'll try and refactor? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's a misunderstanding. I didn't say you were knocking our contributions, but that your tone in referring to us was scornful and dismissive. See where I say that? Tone as in your choice of words. Your phrasing. "Everyone here is well-acquainted with Giano's drama shows and exactly who shows up where to defend him". "Diatribe." The scare quotes. Stuff like that. And that I wouldn't have expected it.

I appreciate the good intentions of the changes you have now made. But actually not the effect of them so much... which is, to make my own posts look nonsensical, both in the evidence and the workshop. I wish you would strike through your original instead. I think it's altogether proper, on an evidence page, to make it clear when stuff was written, which is why I dated my own addition in the heading. Certainly if someone has responded in the meantime. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC).

I put a link in to my original statement. I don't know what you mean by "scare quotes", I was just trying to point out that it's not just friends of Giano in the conventional sense, but a more encompassing group. Once again, I'm sorry for causing offense, but I guess it's just my interpretation about what Giano does- as soon as he gets blocked, or something happens, he evangelizes on his talk page about it and it does become a drama show, causing much more fuss than the actual incident (I blocked him in violation of 3rr for one hour and we got an ArbCom case out of that.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For scare quotes, see our article scare quotes. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC).

Ah, ok. But once again, I did not mean to demean you by some negative connotation (although looking back on it, I shoulda phrased it better so it did not appear so.) Semantics, semantics... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (oh, and you don't have to double post, I do check back on other people's talk pages!)

WMC block of Bardcom - timeline

Hi Bish. I posted a timeline at ANI. Partly because I realised that while you are right to say "WMC's diff shows that the warning was understood", there is a second and important extra condition - that the edit Bardcom was blocked for was after he saw the warning. It turns out that it was, but only just and more because the edit he made four minutes earlier to WMC's talk page (the templated warning edit) shows his awareness of the warning, not the near-simultaneous edits he made to the talk page and article. Would you agree with my statement at ANI that: "if Bardcom had not templated WMC, and Bardcom had reverted at the article before reading and editing the talk page, Bardcom could have quite legitimately argued that he hadn't seen the warning yet"? I know Bardcom didn't say that, but I'm bringing this up because this matter of 'was the block-triggering edit made after the editor saw the warning' is a point that gets missed sometimes (I think you or Geogre made the same argument that Geogre was busy writing a talk page message instead of resetting a certain block). The sequence should be: warning, sees warning, edit, block. Sometimes it is: warning, edit (half a minute later), block, "hey, I didn't see the warning!". It can also be (when the admin gets very confused, or spends a long time writing the warning): edit, warning, block (cue red faces all round). Or even: warning, edit (before seeing warning), responds to warning, block, "I was about to revert and apologise!". Anyway, just some things to think about, I suppose, and I still think the point should be made very forcefully that people should post warnings to user talk pages (for the orange bar) and ensure that enough time has passed for the orange bar to alert the editor. Sometimes, when writing long posts (like this one!), the orange bar doesn't alert an editor until many minutes after the warning was issued. Sometimes even longer if an edit window gets left open. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, gee—yes, sure. I did check those times before posting. These seem to me minor matters, and I would far sooner complain of the comment in the ANI discussion that "It was a three-hour block. Please get over yourself", as far as mistreatment of Bardcom goes. I detest that attitude. Blocks are big deals. Blocks hurt. All blocks. A three-hour block is not a matter of "preventing somebody from editing for three hours," as you sometimes see stated. I mean, I know of an editor, not especially sensitive, who still feels humiliated by a bad block by Betacommand in 2006. One really ought to catch up admins, every time, on such cavalier and callow notions. I certainly would have done, if HalfShadow had been an admin, and perhaps I should in any case. Bishonen | talk 06:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC).

You might also be interested in the discussion on my talk page about blocks and blocking philosophies. In particular the comments by User:Abd. I am thinking of investing in chairs and tea-making facilities and charging rent, so many people have come to my talk page this month! :-) I will have to make clear the shutters are down on that talk page when I go on wikibreak soon. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother, we will just show up and talk in your absence. No need to play host, we can take care of ourselves.  ;-) Risker (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

stray, unimportant question

your signature on giano's talk page today had the name 'Thompson'....what does it mean? if anything? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Good one, Bish! Funniest thing I've seen on WP in a while. Rocks&Dirt, try reading the thread from the beginning...Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

gah. that's what I get for not re-skimming the thread when I ask a stupid question....*sigh* --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

^_^ Bishonen | talk 21:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC).

Thanks

I saw your notes to the arbitrators. That is what alerted me to Kirill's moving of his proposals from workshop to proposed decision. Doesn't look like he changed anything or tried to provide any additional context or even acknowledge any of the Workshop discussion as all. Makes me wonder what the point was. I've posted here about that and some other points. Carcharoth (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Mhmm. Er...do you know how to make permanent links, Carcharoth? And the importance of using them in arbitration cases? See Simple diff and link guide (not just because I wrote it...:-)). Bishonen | talk 10:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

Yes, I do. I don't always, I admit. Where did I forget to use them? Are you say the headers in the arbitration case might change? Carcharoth (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, now I see you do, sorry. (But I got to mention the guide, haha!) I was worried by the links in your "Context and community" post here, that's all. No, I don't mean just the proposed decision headers. (Though certainly I think those might change! FT2 is always fiddling with them, for one thing.) It's just that [/me hastily and belatedly lays it on] your posts are important and much read, so it would be a great pity if there were dead links in them. Bishonen | talk 14:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

Maybe you forgot this? :-) I find your diff and link guide very helpful, but did you know there are ways round that? Try and link to a section in a new or old version of User talk:FayssalF... And thanks for the compliment! You were quite right to remind me to use permanent links, as I didn't do that in a few previous cases. Having said that, if there is ever another Giano case (heaven forbid!) I will be keeping out - I made a comment that the same people prosecute (or snipe from the sidelines each time), so if there is another case, I will merely point that out, request that those people let others have their say, and then watch from the sidelines. The next arbitration case I get involved in will hopefully not be for at least a month, and will be something completely different (in case that came across wrong, I'll just keep an eye on RfArb and see what looks interesting, not filing a case or anything horrendous like that). Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

'shonen, you know that {{3-tier diff}} is available for your convenience. Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, yes, I do. Thanks. I created those pages, and you kindly did the template on request, I think? Wasn't that it? I mainly recommend the middle guide, the simple. But when the cute little compunerds kept adding subtleties to it, I figured those had better drain off into a complete. It's useful, of course—for other nerds—but not altogether pedagogical for the n00bs. The simplest is purely for the terminally confused—it's for "'shonen when she was new." ('Zilla has always been too smart for it.) Bishonen | talk 15:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

Those are your creation? I came across them the other day and they're great :-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I would so much have needed something like that when I was green, so I wrote 'em. :-) (Since you ask.. I should perhaps mention that if you chase down the history, it looks like Moreschi created the simple. He copypasted it from my userspace, though.) Bishonen | talk 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

Just say no!

Just say no to... peanuts! And, be sure to drink plenty of fluids! [Then I ended up writing Opium and Alkaloid Works!] El_C 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Andree's Station at Danskoen, Spitzbergen, Norway

The other day I stumbled across this in an archive while I was searching for something else. Turned out to be fairly easy to restore. Best, Durova^Charge! 00:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had to look carefully to see it wasn't from the movie. I know the shape of the mountain used in the movie though—I live quite near it—and, no, that's got to be the real Spitzbergen. Bishonen | talk 14:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

Streuth!

Got any gin? 5 parts with one part vermouth would hit the spot, tonight. Giano (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Have some brännvin, the both of you! Bishonen | talk 20:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

[It's all getting too much for Bishzilla. Bursts appallingly into drinking ditty in her ancient native tongue :]

Hurra för Svealand

Hurra för Götaland

Å hurra för potatisland

som gav oss brännevin!

som gav oss brännevin!

bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

I-totally understood that. Which brings me to my next point: more scratching groundhog behind ear & rescuing a baby bunny, less bad things! El_C 09:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Idiotbot

Could you have a quick peek at this deleted image [4], I'm sure it's one that has been deleted before, and that I took from a vaporetto, if it is a lopsided palazzo, across the canal clearly taken from a boat by an amateur photographer could you undelete it, on the premise that any image is better than none. It has even been speedied FGS [5], is it a wonder I get bad tempered? Thank you. Giano (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The mouse that ate the palazzo.

I've started trying to, but as you can see the situation is a little complex. Can't you re-upload it yourself, with a rationale about it being self-created, if you took it and have it? Bad-tempered? Who? Never! Bishonen | talk 09:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

No I can't because all the old fotos are in a cardboard boxes in the attics, being eaten by mice, untill such time as I decide to catalogue them, and I don't know where to start looking. Giano (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, the above is the best I can do, then. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

Re: Image problem

Hi, Melesse. I see that you have speedied the image , with the comment (Speedy deleted per (CSD I7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago. using TW). User:Giano—who is not the uploader—has asked me to restore it, because he thinks (from the amateurish quality) that it must be a self-taken photo, although it was apparently uploaded with an erroneous Fair Use rationale. Going to look, I intended to write to the uploader, Habanerosrl and ask him/her to re-upload it, this time with a proper rationale, if he has indeed taken the photo himself. But I'm flummoxed by seeing that Habanerosrl's talkpage is a redlink. Nobody has ever sent any notification to it, as far as I can understand. So, well, how can he have been notified more than 48 hours ago..? And is there any point in me creating the talkpage and posting on it? I must have missed something here. Can you throw any light, and assist us in getting the image back, if possible? Giano's viewpoint is that the page needs it. Bishonen | talk 09:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

Ugh... This again. I wish people would read, the upload prompt pops up a big red warning saying that pictures of living people and existing buildings can't have a fair use license. So of course there's no notification, the upload form assumes (wrongly) that people will read the warning and stop there. Do go ahead with asking them to re-upload with a proper license though. Melesse (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. But I hope you won't mind me saying that it would be a good idea to stop saying the uploader was notified, if they weren't. (Twinkle isn't responsible for anything you say; you are.) I mean, either stop saying it or (better) start doing it. Regards, Bishonen | talk 09:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

Civility and baiting

There is a discussion here in which your insights and opinions, particularly about baiting, may be able to provide important touchpoints for people to be thinking about. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

very interesting thread from wikipedia review

[6] I suppose wikipedia policy does not have jurisdiction offsite.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

ROFLing Ralph Rolfing

I found another dunce who deserves consideration: James Ralph. I wonder if his Touchstone could be dug up in one of those PD sources. It seems like a hot document. (Battestin makes much of it.) I've done two others, too, but they're not that interesting. Why? I don't know why I'm still writing articles. Someone asked me, so I did. Other than that, I really don't. Geogre (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Poetry and the project

While there should be some ramifications for bad poetry, alas there's not. S. Dean Jameson 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He's nothing compared to Mrs. Kittridge, who wrote, upon visiting Westminster Abbey:

Holy Moses, take a look!

Brains and brawn in every nook.

I encountered her in an essay on camp, and I've got to admit, short of newspaper poets who commemorated local tragedies, she takes the prize. Geogre (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ouch! McG's bad, but... sheesh! S. Dean Jameson 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In honor of this, I went looking at the Internets, and it seems that there are far too many collectors of "bad poetry" out there. If the authors are just intraweb dweebs trying to be bad, it doesn't count! The only one that seemed to be actual bad poetry from actual publications in actual little (shall we say "very little?") magazines, was this one. What is depressing about it is that it is what one actually sees submitted. What cheers me is that I know of some people who I shall force to read it. Geogre (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Veropedia

I noticed in your recent edit to Veropedia that you had removed an external link which was dead (HTTP 404 error). As noted on Wikipedia:Dead external links, it is best not to simply remove dead links as they often contain valuable information.

I recommend using the Link checker tool found at toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Checklinks to tag or repair dead links. I have ran this tool already and marked the link as dead.

Hope that helps. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 22:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Bishy!

I can't tell you what a pleasure it is to hear from you...and I really appreciate the trout.  :) Please feel free to stay in touch. Wikipedia is a lonely place without the likes of you and Geogre. Miss you both much. Yours, Lucky 6.9 in his secret guise of --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC), international man of intrigue!

WP:AN/I

Thank you for your succinct and, I thought, on-target defense, especially your calm demolition of absurdity of feeling entitled because someone has the admin bit.

And if I've been rude to you, I apologize. I honestly don't recall being such, and I'd hate to think it was true, as you are an admin who as far as I'm concerned, universally has her head screwed on properly. Except for the whole "destroying Tokyo" thing, which plays hob with the property values. --Calton | Talk 14:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Calton prejudiced favour of Tokyo, that is whole thing! 'Zilla enjoy stomping! Leave 'Zilla harmless hobby! bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC).

Oh dear, what a mess

Have you seen this melodrama? I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Arghhhh! ['Zilla lift majestic foot to stomp] Hah! RFC smithereens! bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC).

I added a few tidbits, but it surely won't come to any sort of clear result. Jehochman ^Talk 00:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

See, I was right! User:Thebainer has deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. RFCs are such a waste of time. I am sorry I bothered. Jehochman ^Talk 06:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the general principle that RfCs are a waste of time, this situation brings to light an important gap in our dispute resolution process. That is, there is no effective way of addressing patterns of behaviour that are seen over several discrete situations rather than one isolated locus. This is particularly noticeable with any RfC involving administrative actions. It gives the community no opportunity to provide feedback to the administrator about its concerns over time, meaning that the only effective way for the community to bring forward concerns about a pattern of behaviour in an administrator is for one or more community members to bring the issue to the Arbitration Committee with a Request for Arbitration. That strikes me as excessively dramatic when sometimes all that is needed is to give the admin a wake-up call. Of course, I have never seen an RfC about a specific editor or administrator really solve the highlighted problem, so I suppose it's spitting into the wind to complain about what is and isn't covered by the process. Risker (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What was the deletion reason? Supposedly uncertified RFC? Anyway...in the case of admins up for recall, there is another rather obvious remedy, nicht wahr? I haven't followed this case to the extent of knowing whether recall would be reasonable; but I must say I was rather sorry to see Elonka's unpreparedness to acknowledge or take on board anything problematic at all about her approach. Her total defensiveness. Yet I must agree that that is what usually happens. People humbly reconsidering their own practices is the rarity. Bishonen | talk 07:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

• • Immediately deleting the talkpage too, before the issue is resolved?[7] No, see, we don't do that. My pet admin has restored the talkpage for now, in order to have a venue for people to comment on a contested deletion. Do not re-delete the talk until the issue is resolved. Bishonen | talk 08:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

An interesting diff

I'm actually going to be a boring admin, doing the dull backlog kind of stuff. ;) And I'll still be in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. All it will take is six good faith editors making a complaint about my use of admin tools at my talkpage, and I will voluntarily resign. But I'm not worried about it, because I'm not planning to use admin tools in controversial ways. :) --Elonka 08:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC) [8]

It does seem like she has said one thing and proceeded to do the exact opposite. What do you make of it? Jehochman ^Talk 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh. She just assumes anyone who disagrees with her is acting in bad faith. I guess she'd say her jumping in to do an ignore all rules sort of thing and enforcing 0RR on a controversial article in which she coaches people how to act is not a controversial thing at all and that others are unfairly trying to present it as controversial. I've known her for years, and she has a remarkable inability to admit that any opinion other than her own has any possible validity. 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs)

Actually, the reason that I'm getting into the Israel/Palestine stuff at all, is because ArbCom appointed me to the Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. I did not volunteer for it, I only heard about it after the fact.[9] So ArbCom asked the group to analyze areas of perennial dispute, and identify ways to deal with the problem. Which is exactly what we are doing. I've actually had considerable success in calming disputes at articles that had been in a state of open warfare for a long time. If anyone knows of an article that "no one can figure out how to deal with," please point me at it, I'll be happy to give it a shot, and you can observe firsthand how the technique works. See also Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes, a page that resulted from WorkGroup discussions. --Elonka 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting news. I think you need to patch up relationships with some of the editors who are criticizing you before you dive into new projects. People have concerns. If you take the time to explain things to them, and to listen to what they have to say, I think that would really help. Jehochman ^Talk 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not on my page, she won't.[10] Get lost, Elonka. Bishonen | talk 18:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

Questions

Is this sort of cross posting customary? [11] In addition, do you think it was right for User:Seicer to remove the SPA tag from that sock puppet User:Fat Cigar? Jehochman ^Talk 19:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not quite at ease with the precise wording of her message, it sounds like it may be considered canvassing because of its lack of neutrality.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There are thousands of users who could post notices if any were needed. Why exactly would the subject of the RFC do this, except to gain some sort of tactical advantage? In light of recent attempts by Elonka to have the RFC deleted (which failed), it is reasonable to conclude that the wikilawyering strategy is being continued.Jehochman ^Talk 20:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's come to that (in my mind, at least), but how does one go about requesting recall? I think there's enough here to at least ask.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away. There is still hope that advice will be heard and adjustments will be made. Jehochman ^Talk 21:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Wait and see.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Whoops, didn't notice this section, sorry. Jonathan, post at the bottom of the page, please... I don't know if the crossposting is customary. It's not the end of the world, though, is it? I don't see how it can yield much of a tactical advantage. But I certainly have an opinion about that ridiculous sock: that it should be tagged and strongly encouraged to get the hell out of the RFC. And checkusered, if anybody has an idea who it is (I don't). I put a note where it appeared on the talkpage; there should be one on the main page, too. Anybody removing a sock tag from it needs to be told off, that's my opinion. Ramdrake, instructions for recall are here. But please note that Elonka's recall criterion, from her RFA, is "All it will take is six good faith editors making a complaint about my use of admin tools at my talkpage". Now, are the present concerns to do with Elonka's use of the admin tools? She uses her adminship, yes, to throw her admin weight around; but the tools? Not so much, surely? To issue a page ban, for instance, doesn't involve using any tools. On the other hand, I don't know a lot about what's been going down. As I keep telling Elonka and others, I not only haven't studied the RFC, I haven't even fucking read it. I've glanced at it! Sorry I missed you guys. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Regarding the sock, try User:Centrum99 first, or any of the indef-blocked users from last fall: Fourdee, MoritzB, Phral, etc. And thanks for the feddback.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Or this mess?

Reading The History of Sir Charles Grandison is almost as bad as reading The History of Sir Charles Grandison. The article is mysteriously finished, DYK, and assessed high importance and B, and yet all without complying to English grammar. I don't care about its author, but if it's going to be "high" and "B," it really should read as if literate. Geogre (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Now I expect to be called names for doing so. I was shocked to find out that it's a counter to Amelia. Given that the debate between those two novels, to the degree that it can be discerned, is a very thin-air discrepancy between two versions of human psychology, and given that we today reject both of them, it's hard to see it as much of an answer novel. Geogre (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Commonly called Grandison ? Que? I've never seen it called Grandison. Who made that up? Bishonen | talk 17:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

Possibly the person who made up "verisimilitude" to mean "fiction surrounding the author." As in, "Richardson claimed to be the editor, but he soon dropped this verisimilitude." I am only surprised that the sentence didn't get an award from the people who know so much about content. (Again, for those just tuning in: mistakes are fine! Mistakes are normal! Just don't be pretentious. Don't make up citations, either, like "Flynn 149-19," and be cautious with vast statements.) I've never heard the novel called "Grandison". I've seen serial references in criticism use it as an abbreviated title, but that's no more "commonly known as" than a critic's last name, which is frequently a second or third reference handle, how the person "is known." I had to descale passives, too. At any rate, if the fellow deals with these improvements properly, I'll be surprised. Geogre (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Those Pesky Bots

Ms. Bish,

I would not presume to edit your page for you, but I noticed you might be annoyed by those pesky bots signing posts on your page. Perhaps putting {{bots|deny=all}} on the page will work. The {{NoAutosign}} tag you have actually only keeps that pesky sinebot from signing your posts for you, it doesn't affect what others do on your page. I'm not sure why your {{nobots}} tag is not working but maybe the deny all will work for you. Tex (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, Tex. Er. [Wheedlingly.] You fix? Please presume! Bishonen | talk 15:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Now we wait and see. Oh.. wait. How about we try it out right now? As in, you write me a message and "forget" to sign it? :-) Da 'Zilla will appreciate! Bishonen | talk 16:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

I can do that. Please don't sign this, thank you.

I need assistance too, I have recently had a robotic attack on my own page. I am left feeling quite shaken by the experience. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, great, you have beaten them, Tex! :-D And my dear Lady Catherine... it's that "no fair use images in userspace" thing, I expect. Let me suggest that you post a complaint on that charming young Giacomo's page—you know him? User talk:Giano II. It's a great place for getting assistance! I'm sure image-savvy people will rush to do your bidding as soon as they hear the distressing circumstances. Positively droves of them. Nobody reads my modest page, you know. (Snort.)Bishonen | talk 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

• • Yes, your page is modest and humble by comparassion, but I cannot bother such an important person as poor dear Giacomo with my silly minor womanly problems. We women must keep our trivia from our menfolk, who have so many more important things to worry about - don't you agree? The mere thought of his darkly tanned good looks coupled with that muscular honed and toned body exuding power and strength leaves me all of a tremble. He reminds me so of my beloved young Benito Amilcare Andrea in his prime. I still weep. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah! Giacomo! Solebaciato! [/me loses herself in pleasant reverie. ] And I know how you treasure this unique footage of your dear Benito coming to offer you his heart, Lady C, accompanied by an unknown friend and watched by an interested crowd. Ah, the romance..! [/me trembles, too ] Bishonen | talk 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

• Given the conversation at the next table today at the restaurant, I am of the impression that the menfolk are even more interested in darkly tanned good looks and toned bodies than we women. Based on their nearly clinical descriptions, I'd hardly venture to suggest they consider these factors trivial.  ;-) Risker (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have to take the romance where you can find it! Bishonen | talk 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Romance has never been a problem for me, with my looks and talents; I only have to click my fingers in that department. Few who have heard my latest recording of romantic songs, entitled: "Lady Catherine singing, accompanied by an Alpenhorn" have been able to overcome their emotions. I recently sent poor dear Jimbo a copy to help him relax, only I suffer more than he! Confidentiality forbids me posting his reply, but let us say he was deeply moved. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Mountfort FAR

Benjamin Mountfort has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Who are you? Bishonen | talk 18:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

So getting rid of those pesky bots might not have been the best idea? Tex (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was more making a rhetorical point, Tex. If I really wanted to know, there's always the history. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

I would not trouble yourself to find out if I were you, Mrs Bishonen. Probably ashamed of his actions, I shouldn't wonder. Just count to 10 and relax - listen to one of the soothing melodies played on my alpenhorn. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that he left a notification on 6 pages with his fancy little script, but did not sign any of them. And yet he's qualified enough to recommend that the article lose it's FA status because he thinks there aren't enough inline citations! Who is he, indeed? What's the saying about inmates and asylums? Tex (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your comment

I understand your concerns and I shall remove my comment. But, I feel that your concerns carry less weight as you do appear to be on good terms with Irpen. Friends are always quick to defend friends. I guess I was just still angry at Irpen for his behaviour on previous occasions. One can't be friends with everyone on Wikipedia :-) Thanks for taking the time to write all that out. I appreciate being told when I'm out of order. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(This is what I wrote on Irpen's user page) - Yeah... *through gritted teeth* thanks Keeper. - No. I shall stop being angry now. I guess I've always had a bad temper on here and it really has collided with some people. I've decided to stop giving into the addiction :-) - I don't think I'm a bad person. I know how to be nice and polite. I guess I just lose control when I see things that I believe are wrong. That happens with everyone. Irpen, in the past, I've found some of your comments to be enraging to the point of wanting to burn my whole flat down. But oh well :-) I am passed that as of now. I have nothing against you personally. You're a human being. I'm genetically programmed to love you in some sort of fashion. Maybe not physically just yet... We'll talk about that another time (if you're into that sort of thing... I'm game if you are?). Anyway, I'd just like to say I'm sorry for losing my temper with you. I promise I won't engage in any future discussions on Wikipedia that will lead to me swearing or losing my temper. This includes ignoring Kurt Maxwell Weber, any cabals, Daniel Brandt, and the poo (that's not a swear word) stain that is Wiki Review. I promise I won't make fun of, belittle, insult or upset anyone (intentionally) ever again on Wikipedia or Wikipedia Review or on the Internet in general. I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologise to anyone whom I have upset over the past 17 months and I will endeavour to patch things up with them again. Thank you to everyone whom has been nice to me :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a very nice post. Thank you. Though about being friends... well, you have a point there. On the other hand... I suppose that you meant your comments to Irpen on your friend Enigmaman's RFA to carry weight, huh..? I really do appreciate what you posted on Irpen's page, though. That was a beautiful response. :-) Bishonen | talk 21:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

Re: Warning

Thanks for stepping in with Elonka. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't warn people much, let alone block for personal attacks, but that was just too, too bad. Wait, I'd better go give her a timeframe. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

A block seems over the top, though it is what she does to others (without the out of providing diffs or other justification). Seems a bit too much just making a WP:POINT about the partiality of her behavior. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bishonen, this threat to block Elonka is completely inappropriate. You cannot be considered uninvolved by any stretch of the imagination, and such a block would not comply with policy. I sincerely hope you wouldn't actually follow through with such a ridiculous threat. - auburnpilot talk 22:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Stretch your imagination a little further in that case, AuburnPilot. It seems to be excessively narrow in compass. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

Your snide remarks aside, such a block would be completely unacceptable and no doubt overturned. I certainly can't stop you from making such a mistake, but there are plenty who would reverse it. - auburnpilot talk 22:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A block would be justifiably overturned, and any such sanctions against Elonka would be rendered moot and pointless by the wheel-warring that would ensue as a result. seicer | talk | contribs 22:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Er... I'm not actually an admin, you know. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

Bishonen such a block would not be based in policy and would be ill-advised. Chillum 22:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Chillum, always the man of the hour. I wouldn't forbid you my page, certainly, but could you please limit your comments on it to those you feel are absolutely necessary? Anything that includes the word "ill-advised" or any of its synonyms I think we can take as understood, you and I. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

You can rest assured I felt my comment necessary. While we have disagreed in the past I would hate to see you make a block that leads to you being reversed and likely admonished. I cannot bring myself to assume that these things are "understood" due to your actions. Chillum 22:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And you reckon that comment was necessary as well. I see. You know, I would have thought that might sort of show you what I mean. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

I've responded on User talk:Elonka, but as our exchange isn't exactly benefiting anyone, I'm happy to end it at that. Best wishes moving forward. - auburnpilot talk 23:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(Scared of Bishzilla, huh?) Bishonen | talk 23:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

If you were faced with a dinosaur apparently doing a Technicolor yawn, wouldn't you be? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. "Chillum" thinks that blocking someone for calling another warned for harassment and a liar is out of line? This is the person who thought that "incivility is the #1 problem at Wikipedia?" This is the person who has favored every "NPA" block that has ever been proposed? Ok, that's odd. As for Bishonen being uninvolved, it's a simple fact. She is entirely uninvolved in the RfC and has neither edited the same articles as Elonka nor had any quarrel with Elonka in, what, three years? By such a standard, no one is an uninvolved admin, because every admin has either expressed praise or condemnation of Elonka at some point on wiki, and who the heck knows how many are getting and sending private e-mails? Bishonen has a point of view, and -- get this -- it's an informed point of view (a deep concept, I know). I have a point of view, too, but in the case of Elonka it's far more impressionistic and not based on deep investigation. However, I have never had a quarrel with Elonka in any venue. Would I be "uninvolved?" You folks are comic in a very dark way. Geogre (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, way too many <koff> uninvolved admins are actually uninformed admins. Again CIVIL is in the eye of the beholder, what is unCIVIL to Chillum and Elonka is clearly not applicable to them. Shot info (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

George if you need to misrepresent me to make your point, then perhaps you should reconsider your point. My position on NPA is a little more complex than what you make it out to be. This is not the venue for this debate, but if you wish to have a civil discourse my talk page is open to you as always. Chillum 02:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have never interacted with Elonka, so have no interest or comment on her, but as a frequent visitor to this page, I know than I would trust Bishonen's judgement over that of many other admins any day any time. However, as an observer to many of Wikipedia's furores, one thing strikes me as rather odd. Why is it, Chillum, so often that whenever there is a whiff of trouble, there you are, two paces behind - pontificating? Especially, if it concerns the group of editors to which I belong. It seems to me you just love any excuse to turn up and opine and criticise any of us. What are you actually here for? When your behaviour is pointed out you scream and shout that it is unfair, yet you seem to pursue certain editors just waiting to pounce on any opportunity to poke your stick into any hornet's nest. It's my opinion that you just lurk around Wikipedia, agendaless, seeking problems, any problems because you simple enjoy the drama of trouble. You certainly appear to have no sound reasons or excuses for such behaviour; it's not pleasant - So disinterested am I in you, that I do not even know the subjects in which you edit, and where your peculier interests lie, so why not extend the same courtesy? In short, leave us alone and find something more constructive to do with your time, before others, less kindly than myself, begin to notice - what is amounting to obsessive behaviour. Giano (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Giano you ask me to avoid you then you pop up to something unrelated to you and criticize. Well I am responding because you asked me to, so please don't think I am stalking you. The answer is that I have WP:AN and WP:ANI and my watchlist, this lead to Elonka's user space being on my watchlist, and I have concern about the community. When I see an admin making a mistake I try to stop them. I notice that I am just one of many people who have criticized this warning, yet you seem to think I am out of place somehow. I am not really aware of what sort of connection you and Bishonen have, if you could enlighten me to its nature I could perhaps be more sensitive to you in the future when speaking to Bishonen. I really did not mean to offend you, you didn't even cross my mind in this instance. Chillum 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fuck off! Bishonen | talk 17:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC).

For the good of Wikipedia, Chillum, could you give Bishonen a bit of space? Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Chillum 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. B, I did not remove, I "whitewashed"¿ [12] Jehochman ^Talk 18:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, please do not whitewash, let everyone, in particular the Arbcom, see that the contributing editors of this project are sick to death of useless twits like Chillum popping up to stir every pot - and getting away with it. These people have been encouraged in their stupidity for long enough. Now is the time to sort it! Giano (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Chillum, if you "got the message" and didn't mean to provoke, etc., then the way best to show that is to not come back to say "Fine" and "ok" and "you can have the last word" and the like. You don't need to answer. It's ok. I didn't answer you, above, because this is Bishonen's talk page, for talking to Bishonen, about things Bishonen wants to talk about or things Bishonen has done, if Bishonen wants to talk to you. She said she didn't want to talk to you. That's about that, I should think. It's easier to have peace than conflict: just remove user talk pages from your watchlist and add articles to it, instead. Life gets far simpler and more interesting that way. Geogre (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting RFC/U

Odd? [13] [14][15] -- Jehochman ^Talk 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not odd at all. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC).

Do I know?

Ok, a DYK today is Skaga stave church, and it's in Tiveden, Sweden, or something my American mind remembers as that. Now, it makes a "could it be because of pagan sacrifices" sort of claim in 1774. Was this a wild area in 1774? How likely is it that Aesir worshippers were hanging about dedicating battles to Odin at that point? Just wondering. Geogre (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a wild place, certainly, a big ancient intractable forest with no cultivated plots of land nor decent inhabitants. Known for its dangerous trolls, outlaws, and masterless men. (Redlink? Bah! Geogre fix!) Tiveden was much feared by travellers who had to traverse it to get to/from Stockholm. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

Would 'offering' be a better word? You may also be interested in Trollkyrka. Also worth keeping in mind is that there were certainly still some pagans in Sweden in the 18th century. Haukur (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I suppose most of them will have been brought under the sweet yoke of Christ by 1774. Haukur (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at those links (Easter egging them! forshame!), but I don't know the geography. If this is way the heck north or way the heck sparsely populated at the time, then that's alright. As for offerings, this always bothers me, at least slightly. If you go to Wales or some parts of Dorset, you may find folks who will put out a dish of milk for the fairies in the 19th c., but suggesting that they were actually pagan would be inappropriate. My concern is with the neo-pagan folks who take itsy bitsy folk practices and try to turn them into a battle of (good) native religion and (violent, bad, mean, and un-fun) Christianity. It's that exaggerated Green Man thinking that worries me -- not that I think it's going on here -- I'm just watching and worrying and trying to be learning. Geogre (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the pagan survival angle is sometimes played up a bit but not just by neo-pagans - 19th century romantics and 21st century fundamentalists (read a Chick tract lately?) do it too. As for Tiveden it doesn't seem like it's in the middle of nowhere. Haukur (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh! The Trollchurch is pretty good proof. I would venture, though, just secretly, that they were pagans the way the 18th c. "Satanists" were Satanists. Maybe not, though. I just don't like drawing big lines through the dead, when I can't figure out the living. (Oddly, we're on the same wavelength here. Yes, Chick tracts are everywhere down here. I have only to go to the Dairy Queen down the street to gather up a whole graphic novel of them.) Geogre (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I fancy myself something of a Chick tract... connoisseur? A particular favorite is this one - turns out that the Jack-o'-lantern is an ancient Druidic tradition having to do with spirits and sacrifices. Though I think Chick probably believes in this stuff with much more fervor than the average neo-pagan.

Sorry for hijacking your talk page, Bish, I hope the big lizard is not having a bad day. Haukur (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I bet you do, I bet you do, Haukur! Having quite admirably restrained herself from eating her campaign manager,[16] the lizard probably only has one question for you, namely [longingly ] "So... is the little Haukur plump and juicy ?" Bishonen | talk 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

White Rabbit....

One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you
Don't do anything at all
Go ask Alice
When she's ten feet tall

You could probably think of some amusing bluelinks to put in there.....or to the rest of the song acutally....White Rabbit/Grace Slick/Jefferson Airplane just sprung to mind when I stumbled over one thread or other :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh what a cute furball :-) ! Bishonen | talk 15:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

If you have a bunny, you need a hutch to put it in. Just find a nice spot here. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow the bunny into the box.

[Puny Bishonen reaches for pekingese to put it into her middle European beef stew. Bishzilla rescues it. Reprovingly: ] Pet! Not snack! Name it Bishingese ! bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

I don't care for rabbits and other vermin, unless in a game pie at a shooting luncheon, as for reptiles, I don't feel Ms Bishzilla has the necessary charectoristics for an Arbcom member, perhaps listerine may help her, I really can't say. However dear little Mrs Bishonen, as you appear to an animal lover, here is a little gift, the progeny of my very own darling Wonki Poo. Please name him something apt.Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

But what about rubbing the tummy? El_C 10:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's so appropriate, that chipmunk. In honor of Sunday, he's obviously saying his prayers. That might be because of piety or fear of the strange vanilla tube punching his stomach. Geogre (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I hear dinner is currently being served on this page! Reynard

Veropedia

Hi Bishonen. Thanks for the note about Veropedia. I've been aware of Veropedia for a while, I even entered the core contest which died a death a while back, but I'm looking for something better than that, something the community as a whole supports and which the community owns. How that is achieved I do not know. And part of it was an aimed point at Tony. Anyways, I am glad you are back and editing at Wikipedia. Hiding T 17:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Polar exploration

Hi Bishonen. I think you were one of the major contributors to S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897. So I thought you might be interested in this. I've known for a while that the amount of FA-class Antarctic articles had been building up, but wasn't aware that the number of FA-class Arctic exploration articles was so lacking. I was amazed to find that there doesn't even seem to be an "Arctic" WikiProject. See Talk:Arctic for example. What I want to try and do is get an Arctic WikiProject going (or find one if it exists), and get the Arctic exploration articles up to the standards of the Antarctic ones (see Category:FA-Class Antarctica articles), so that the overall topic of polar exploration can be improved (do you think that combining the Arctic and Antarctic exploration articles might work?). Do you know any editors that might be interested in this? I've been going through Category:Exploration of the Arctic and Category:Polar exploration and there also seems enough there to maybe have a portal or featured topic on this, though possibly having the exploration articles in Portal:Antarctica and Portal:Arctic (doesn't yet exist!) might be better. What do you think? I will drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Antarctica as well. Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Crazy old Andrée... well, he was no crazier than Scott, I guess, but in a more colorful way. But I think you've come to the wrong shop, Carcharoth. I'm not really a WikiProject kind of person. ("Bishonen too explosive personality to fit in!"—"Do shut up, Bishzilla! Everybody can't be lovely like you.") They seem to rub me the wrong way, especially the assessment systems. It's nothing personal to myself, but I've seen some unfortunate stuff going down. Sometimes some projects seem to attempt to claim special power over articles—well, I suppose one notices those more than the ones that are just beneficially busy.

Although I wrote the Andrée article, I don't really otherwise know from Arctic exploration, or anybody that's into it. I just researched that one crazy tragicomic weird balloon thing. Sorry. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC). (Er, what IS a Featured topic anyway? I've never heard of such a thing.)

Wikipedia:Featured topics should explain all. I'm not clear where the line gets drawn between a topic and a portal, so I'm getting ambitious and gunning full speed ahead with gathering material for Portal:Arctic. Wish me luck! Oh, and did you know about several other tragicomic (well, some more tragic than comic) Arctic expeditions? How about Umberto Nobile and his airships Norge and Italia in the 1920s? The story of the America airship (1906 up to 1910) is only a decade or so after Mr Andrée. The Ziegler Polar Expedition (1903-1905) is also interesting. The Chelyuskin steamship (1933) was famous in the Soviet Union (it got stuck and crushed, while the earlier Icebreaker Sibiryakov expedition, led by the same people, succeeded), and earlier was Zarya (polar ship) (1900-1903). Going back to the 1930s, there were several successful Soviet transpolar flights, but also some that were never heard from again... (see Sigizmund Levanevsky for the N-209 mission - we don't have an article, but see Chertok front matter, pages 130-137). Flitting back to the 19th century, the story of George W. Melville (and the USS Jeanette) in 1879 is quite amazing. The grand-daddy of them all, though, is Franklin's lost expedition of 1845.

Nothing takes your fancy there? :-) More seriously, I understand the aversion (or rather disinterest) some have for the WikiProject model. Sometimes it produces stuff, sometimes not. I'm kind of hoping though that I can inspire some people to do as much work on the Arctic exploration stuff as they have on the Antarctic exploration stuff. I might try and make a start at List of Arctic expeditions, though I fear that will be different in scope to the Antarctic equivalent (more expeditions). Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(butting in) some wikiprojects I have been in have worked or are working really well, notably birds and dinosaurs, folks have been really collaborative and supportive. The FA-Team's work on all the Everglades articles in a drive to Featured Topic-hood, and a current collaboration of sorts at major depressive disorder is going ok. One has to pick and choose but I think I have been luckier than most. Still, if it ain't a controversial topic it could be a goer...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Projects show up to announce that my article "has been assessed" as unimportant, trash-class, and a stub (because it's short and doesn't have an infobox with a photograph of the ancient Greek poet, or the poetic meter I'm describing). I haven't seen them generate things that the people weren't going to generate anyway, and I have seen them announce, "This is now property of Project X. Kindly obey and conform to our guidelines." For those of us who just work, the Projects are noise, insult, and clutter. (Oh, do you have a banner announcing the brand of your Project, with a box 3 screens long? Oof.) And, to add to that, in this case the problem with anything arctic is that, unlike the antarctic, there is the problem of a transglobal settlement by humans through time. Thus, there are people already there, but, more importantly, there were once people there before. This introduces complexity to any age of exploration. I recently looked at my favorite fictional place, Baffin Island, and I heard that, definitively, it was the land called X or Y by the Norse. Huh. I read the Vinlandsaga, and they didn't land on Baffin Island, because it looked like it was all rock, to them, I thought. However, there were probably some jokers living there, all the same, on the 8 vegetative acres. Anyway, I'm a little vitriolic, but my exchanges with the projects have never yet been positive. Geogre (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, they never bothered me - all the wikiprojects I have been involved with have been pretty laid back...basically a collection of editors interested in a particular subject, hence all the project template box serves is to point an interested party in the direction of aforesaid wikiproject for help. And it allows fun things like WP:BABS, WP:FABS and WP:MABS....and those assessment charts which may give one an idea of what to edit next...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: This

Do you have any idea if we're allowed to show complete copy/pastes of websites if the "owner" has given "permission"? I wouldn't think so, would you? Shall I just point him to WP:COPYVIO? Thanks for moving the post! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 10:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, no, don't point him to that, do you want his head to explode? I'm not a copyright whizz by any means, but I'll give you the common-sense answer: what he wrote is not the kind of permission we need. His use of the word "responsibly" ruins it. Wikipedia can only use stuff that everybody and anybody else can take from us and re-use. We only have control of our own use being responsible, not of anybody else. You might want to ask him if he wants to release it freely to the entire internet, regardless of how they use it—say, for instance, release it under the GFDL. Because on such a condition, Wikipedia can use it; otherwise not. Regards, Bishonen | talk 10:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC).

Custom

Thank you for putting me right with regard to this convention and moving my comment. I did not know that the custom is to put new posts at the bottom of talkpages; I presumed it was the other way. Your help is appreciated. 86.135.208.100 (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

On the NLP stuff...

Just making sure... I was agreeing with you! Sometimes "tone" is lost in typing...--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sure. No, you were perfectly clear, thanks. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC).

My head's in Mississippi

but, according to an atlas, the fun part's in Tahiti. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Snake Oil

I was thinking that it's time that I write an article about the Bible recommended weight loss product and then get really involved in making sure that it has its own Project. Geogre (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyssop and moly, hyssop and moly.

No comments? It's a cool picture. The lady has scriptural evidence that the best diet is beans and water. Incidentally, there is medical evidence, too, that it's a good, basic diet. Now, where in the Bible there is a description of brains growing on trees is another matter. Geogre (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus! I take it she's not a fan of Pythagoras then - all that 'sinfulness of bean consumption' stuff. List of Foodstuffs prohibited by religions sounds like it should have a featured list - perhaps the first goal of your new project Geogre? --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Brain gardening and a whole portal from there. How are they grown, how are they pruned, and how do you get on ArbCom by having a bonsai brain. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Loaves and fishes make a healthy diet, don't they? Oh, look, bluelink! :-) Bishonen | talk 15:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

Is Gluten intolerance sent by the Lord to test faith at communion? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If your problem is gluten intolerance with communion wafers, then you're engaging in gluttony. I don't think a flat disk 2cm across is going to trigger anaphylactic shock. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have since been random paging, and I have discovered that there are portals, and then there are portals. How can we not have an article on every character in every prequel of a Philippino fantasy TV show? Utgard Loki (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Eep! It's like Pokemon, but a single nation's miniseries. It's like Heroes, but more like Heroes and Power Rangers. Weird. Geogre (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Locusts and honey is a Bible approved diet (John the Baptist), and so is bread and wine, famously. It was a grain and fish oriented diet, with generous portions of lamb and goat, but other peoples were just as thin, as no one had developed high fructose corn syrup yet (just saw a documentary called King Corn that wasn't very good, but it was fairly good). Folks today are eating candy bars, even when they think they're eating muffins, all thanks to Earl Butz. Geogre (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Bish. They are mad at me 'cause I caught their latest little game at List of new religious movements. If you want to ask your little friend to semi-protect my user page then that might keep the workload down. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Big friend 'Zilla semi. bishzilla _ROARR!! 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

Oops. Sorry. Big Big Big --Justallofthem (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Huge! bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

Advice

Does this sort of thing need to get oversighted or is just reverting ok? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the rule about it may be, I'm afraid. But common sense suggests just revert to me. Given that there's no revealing edit summary, who's going to notice it? Bishonen | talk 16:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

Fair enough - thanks B. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, FGS, Joop. Now there's a revealing edit summary! :-( Bishonen | talk 16:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

Yep - unfortunately did the revert before asking about the oversight. <drums fingers thinking> --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe best ignored? 'Zilla not have oversight, regret. bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

Yes, sod it. Conclusion - there's a reason I don't do recent changes. Actually I was surprised how many anon IP's aren't 'friends of gays' anymore - has vandalism just become more sophisticated lately or have people given up expressing their joy about living in sexually liberated times? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

They have teh MyFace.com. They there can pollute at will and even "friend" each other over it. "My favorite things are drawing penises on the Queen, putting 'on wheels' before everything, and writing 'is so gay' on everyone else's page." Utgard Loki (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're so gay. I'm going to draw a penis on your picture. Everyone who is cool knows you put "On Wheels" after everything, not before. Gah. Me^?!? 17:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In other news

I'm wishing I'd bought the canoe I saw at a yard sale a couple of weekends ago. This is two streets from me.

<:--:Putting comment way down so as not to be first to reply --:>

Ow! Is that person hitch hiking? He seems to have his thumb out. Perhaps he's waiting for that canoe, too. (We nordic types don't worry about hurricanoes, you know. Much more concerned about the Fenris Wolf.) Utgard Loki (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that the guy actually thinks a monster truck is going to come by and offer the ride. I work in disaster relief, an d I can pretty much guess that, unless he's in a wheelchair, famous or spurting blood from his eyes, he's going to be seen as capable of getting his own self outta trouble. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy.

My only alternative to warning the guy is to report him when he finally violates 3RR. The problem with that is that I might get painted as "baiting him" (a stupid argument offered by another editor, as I am pretty sure DG is potty-trained and grown-up enough able to make decisions for himself). However, you are correct in that he is going to ignore anything I suggest - if I say the sky is blue, he gets tied up in knots enough that the opposing view carries his very self-worth with it.
How do you propose the community deals with DreamGuy? He treats our rules are treated like a mildly shocking electric fence, instead of the Third Rail they are meant to represent. I am at a loss as to how to interact with him, and only do so to protect articles from disruption. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he violates 3RR, he should be reported and blocked. I feel like I'm repeating myself here... but DreamGuy reallydoesn't need a 3RR warning, he is aware of the concept. If anybody should try to make out he isn't (highly unlikely), you can blame me for misleading you. Or point out that he was blocked for 3RR less than two weeks ago and isn't an amnesiac. IMO he'd be more likely to feel baited by an unnecessary warning, rather than by a report to WP:3RR. I'm not impugning your good faith, but it seems to me you have those alternatives backwards.

As for dealing with him—well, he was RFAR'd in 2007,[17] and is under a civility restriction.[18] If you think it warranted, you could report him to WP:AE for violating that restriction. Bishonen | talk 20:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

I'd much rather not be involved with him at all. That sort of bad energy and ugliness is depressing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Look... talking about DreamGuy in those terms on other people's pages is to involve yourself with him. If you're serious about not wanting that, then don't talk about ugliness on my page, and don't warn him on his. You know? Feel free to discuss edits on article talkpages. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

Alright. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI

Thanks I have seen that and posted on TheFEARgod's talk. It's classy of you to let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to join the discussion on WP:AN, if you like, and refute the accusations if you think them without merit. I didn't go into that side of it, or really study the talkpage, or the article. I just looked at the tale the History told. Well, maybe it's not worth it, that's up to you. Bishonen | talk 07:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

FYI - Elonka

Hello, just to let you know I took the liberty to add myself to Elonka's RfAr.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Absolutely. People should feel free to—I don't regard myself as somehow "in charge" of the case, or needing to be consulted. I'm a little stressed here—did you see that Swat and Rlevse between them messed about with the request until they'd disappeared my statement??? See history. Oh, man. A bona fide accident, no doubt (said she with admirable self-restraint). I've just put it back. I'd better go check if anything else has been lost. I'd appreciate it if other people help me keep an eye on stuff going missing. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

No one was "messing" with your statement. It was inadvertently lost in an edit conflict btwn Swatjester and Ime (grammar, couldn't help myself. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)) when, at the same time, we were trying to move the case to the RFAR section where it belonged from the clarification section where it was initially placed. Sorry for the trouble, it was inadvertent. I'll help check. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it was inadvertent. I know that. But it was a bit of a pity nobody noticed that the moves led to there being no reason offered for the RFAR, until I restored my statement 38 minutes later. A new request for arbitration of a high-profile user will generally tend to arouse interest, but people must have been quite mystified by that one. Bishonen | talk 22:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

I actually was unaware that Rlvese was even editing the page until after the fact. I was trying to move the thing from the clarification to the main section. Sorry if it got lost in the shuffle (though I think that was Rlevse's doing rather than mine) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't deserve any more words, guys. Sorry I put it in the wrong place. 'Zilla has written to you, Swat. (Oh, your hair got singed? Sorry to hear it!) Bishonen | talk 11:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

With a hat

For your consideration: Dog with a hat. El_C 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I would fixate on the details of the non-canine in the photo and talk about how it is a sip of water for a parched land, but I kind of sense someone quite young there, and that would make any such comments creepy rather than charming. Besides, that's a ton of pink for a bulldog to endure. (Like putting a Pomeranian in S&M gear, except that poms are a bit dominatrix.) Geogre (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There you go, Geogre: more hat! El_C 05:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Ok, I take it back. That's just well coordinated fashion sense and not feminizing the bulldog at all. (Ah, memories. Being turned down in high school, being snubbed in college, being maced in graduate school.) Geogre (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On a more cheerful note (than my libido, everything is), El C seems to have been right about the RfAr. In fact, hats are the problem. Some people are the same venal, incoherent, vain people with their official hats on and off. I'll bet the bulldog would not be so confused. Geogre (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Do try to understand that Geogre needed arbitration and Elonka doesn't! It's what I expected. So why did I bother looking out all those diffs and stuff, and why did you write that bullshit-piercing comment? Perhaps simply so as to be able to say "We tried everything." Bishonen | talk 13:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

"well, I despair of finishing that sentence" - I think "wiki-lawyering" is the phrase you were looking for. The other thing is that the attitude of some arbitrators has been clear for a while. The bainer recused, correctly, because he deleted the RfC. Not sure why others have recused, but I think they got involved at some point as well - possibly the DRV over the RfC. The real trouble here is that there are lots of issues mixed up here. In that sense, trying to separate the issues out does make sense, but then any defence would no doubt consist of putting them all back together again... By the way, have you read the DRV? Interestingly, the bainer and Sam Blacketer (who both acted or commented there) recused, but Morven did not. I will raise that at the RfArb. Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You're an incurable optimist, Carch. Do raise it by all means, but I've noticed that there is nothing that'll more reliably affront an arb than a suggestion that they recuse. That's by no means an observation on Morven personally, it's my impression of... arbcom culture. Never mind, the Cultural Revolution is a-coming! And, no, I wasn't exactly looking for a word so much... the despair was a rhetorical flourish. :—) Bishonen | talk 16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

"Recuse" is not in Black's Law Dictionary according to noted idiot William Saffire, but Saffire, with his apolitical hat covering his head knot, reports that it is a reflexive verb. One must recuse himself. The proper transitive verb form is "disqualify." So, with this in mind, let's ask what would be true of a person who was disqualified from a trial. Would that person give testimony? Would that person engage in ex partite discussions with defense, prosecution, and judiciary? I would say that such a person would not. However, we have people here who "have recused," but who have nevertheless testified and nevertheless continue to opine and sit beside those who have not "recused themselves." That is not only a legal, but an ethical lapse. Geogre (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes yes, but did you click on the mystery link in my previous post? Bishonen | talk 19:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

You see, that's the problem with easter egg links. No-one clicks on them! Carcharoth (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly did click. Did you do the same for the Saffire article? I'm a big user of Easter eggs, so I do check them out, but I am quite sure that few, if any, do the same. Oh, and there were important points I was making, too, but I suppose those must be utterly obvious. Geogre (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If Bishzilla is appointed to ArbComm, I am so completely [REDACTED]. Jehochman ^Talk 03:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But the inhabitants of Tokyo will be eternally grateful! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Anna Charlier

Can you check the death date at Anna Charlier? There are two dates in there (1942 and 1949), and this source (the link downloads a pdf file, use this html link if you prefer) says 1947 - would ask the editor, but they haven't edited since July. Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

On recusal, and a request for arbitration

I'd be the same (biased, or not) arbitrator regardless of any comments about any subject made on-Wiki. Any prejudices I might have would still be there. I feel that if all that is required for an arbitrator to be in a position that they should recuse is that they've stated an opinion on anything related to the subjects of the case in public before a case is opened, then you're not going to get more recusals - you're going to get fewer public comments, more behind-the-scenes maneuvering, and less transparency, not greater.

That's not my being affronted, though. I have a personal failing of wishing to explain my reasoning rather than ignoring the topic; sometimes this comes across as affronted or defensive, perhaps. Not my intention.

As to the arbcom case, I'm increasingly feeling that there is a case to answer with regards to complaints about Elonka's admin actions; either they are incorrect or the belief that she's wrong is incorrect (or, indeed, some combination of the above), but there's certainly a genuine difference of opinion there that's deep-seated and needs some proper consideration.

I'm not willing to consider anything related to admin recall or promises made during RFA, though. "Admin recall" is a voluntary process; I'm not about to go and retroactively make it mandatory and enforced by arbcom sanction. I view promises made at RFA to be not worth the paper they're written on, and always have; they have become campaign promises, and just as meaningful. One supports for adminship, hopefully, on record, not promises.

Perhaps the issue is that adminship has become (has always been?) political, but we have a structure set up to reinforce a belief that adminship is not political. The theory behind it has always been that any reasonably sensible user should be able to get adminship, and that it should only be taken away for egregious misuse of the extra tools. Remember that originally the naïve intention was that all users should have these tools, and that requiring blessing in the form of an admin flag was simply about keeping those tools away from the newest of new users. Any non-casual editor of Wikipedia was supposed to get them absent doing something irresponsible.

The culture of RFA has changed, however, and admins are seen increasingly as a special class, a status that should not be granted to most users and that should require special qualifications and persuasion to be granted. It is in this context that campaign promises have become more likely, and thus the question of broken campaign promises comes up.

Perhaps, indeed, it needs to be accepted that adminship is no longer what it was. I feel that perhaps you and others may be interpreting our rejection of enforcing recall as being support for Elonka; it's not that, I don't think, but rather (at least in my case) the long-time user and admin's feeling that this isn't the way it should be and wasn't the way it was.

Perhaps we do need, indeed, a way to vote people out of adminship, or a requirement for reconfirmation, or something. I guess after that the problem is that it's become increasingly hard to change anything on Wikipedia; real consensus on any policy change is nigh-on impossible these days, and any "consensus" group that can be attained tends to be a laughably small proportion of active users, and thus cannot demonstrate such widespread support as to overwhelm. Thus, policy change seems to be left to the Arbcom, or Jimbo, or to pronouncements of the Wikimedia Foundation, even though in theory none of these bodies are really supposed to be making policy outside of very narrow bounds.

The other issue is, of course, that support among admins for a procedure for de-adminship is going to be very limited; "turkeys voting for Christmas" was someone's comment on its likelihood, as I recall. Thus, I suppose, is one reason why it might be desirable for Arbcom to pronounce on this, but I can't help but think it's a step too far in terms of our writing policy.

I'm sorry for the disjointedness and inconsistency of this; it's as much thinking out loud as anything else, and on your talk page to boot. Please feel free to trim if you need to, but I'd like to hear your thoughts about any of this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, but this is a bad time for me onwiki and IRL. I'm past caring about the status of the admin in question and the RFAR. I guess I wore out my care in writing up the request, and there wasn't that much of it to begin with. If the committee, in turn, doesn't care that we have an admin who acts the way this one does, and who gathers more power to herself every day (look at this, for instance) then, shrug, so be it. It can't be news to you people that the community can't desysop anybody—we can just ask them nicely to step down. That's been tried in this case. Feel free, Morven and others, to discuss the matter on this page, if you like, but I don't think I'll be looking in much. Bishonen | talk 17:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

Thanks anyway, and sorry to hear it.

The community can't desysop people, but even the arbcom is not supposed to desysop people for unpopularity; we're supposed to desysop only on abuse. Of course, the definition of "abuse" isn't precise and how much you have to do to get desysopped inevitably varies.

The arbcom (as currently constituted, at least) tends to believe its role is not that of dispassionate adjudicator of hard-and-fast rules, but rather that we're supposed to weigh things against the interest of the project as we see it. Perhaps that's flawed, and a wholly neutral robotic thing is what the community want, but the current arbcom doesn't believe that and doesn't believe that that's the mandate they have.

It could be that attempting to guide things in the "right direction" is behind some of the errors the arbcom has made, though - our instincts sometimes have led us away from openness in the belief that it'll encourage a better outcome, and perhaps that's been a flaw.

I'd certainly welcome any input from anyone else. Since I'm into the last few months of my time on the arbcom - and glad for it - I guess I'm in a mood for retrospection, for setting things down, for considering what we've done right and wrong for three years, and all that. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, since I've belatedly recollected that I'm one of the problem users you've been "protecting the interests of the project" from, Morven, perhaps it would after all be as well to take the discussion somewhere else. It seems a little weird to have it on my talkpage. Bishonen | talk 13:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC).

Yes, we, the community, have the power to desysop. What power we give, we can take away. ArbComm's job is to help us sort out the sticky situations where we can't come to a consensus. Regrettably, we have not come to a consensus yet on the process for a community desysop, but this does not mean that the power does not exist. Regards, Jehochman ^Talk 02:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I only posted an RFAR on Elonka because nobody else seemed willing to, you know, Jonathan. Since my approach won't do, why don't you just write a whole different request yourself? I was basically attempting to get the arbs to read the recall motion and take note of the reasons and links its supporters gave. It's a little unexpected that the committee won't take any account of the spirit of my request—considering that they've been prepared in other cases to diverge so completely from the way a request is framed. Heck, to diverge from its name, even.[19] [20] [21] But there you are. Bishonen | talk 13:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC).

If you recuse, you disqualify

The Saffire link I had above suggests that "recuse" is a reflexive form of "disqualify." If you recuse, you disqualify yourself. It is about ethics (knowing that you have a conflict in a case) and it is about self-restraint (on the basis of that conflict, withholding all comment). It seems to me that Morven's comment is, essentially, "At least I admitted the conflict, and if you expect people to have self-discipline, you'll get no admissions."

These are separate axes. Are users ethical enough to admit when they have a conflict? If we expect and require that they have self-discipline, Morven argues, they will forget their ethics. This implies that other arbitrators with known conflicts in a case who do not recuse have a rational basis for it. In fact, what they have is either lack of self-awareness (a bad sign) or lack of ethics (a disqualification). If their conflicts are pointed out (sorry about the passive) to them, and they deny or ignore it, then they prove that they are unethical (unless they can successfully argue the absence of the conflict).

However, people who have conflicts not only need to have the ethics of admitting this, but they must have the ethics and self-control to actually refrain from comment. It's not forced, except by the position of being an arbitrator. It is, instead, something that people should do because it is right and because not doing so will destroy the verdict they deliver. (Yeah, yeah, not a court, etc.) If people with conflicts go ahead and talk and persuade in secret, then the result will be a decision that the aggrieved parties will not respect and will not comply with.

Remember that Wikipedia is voluntary, and ArbCom has no actual power. It has consent. If members of it will admit their conflicts and yet still act as advocates in a case, even in secret, the consent disappears. When this happens over and over, the consent evaporates. The more the arbitrators appear to be leaving their personal selves out of the deliberations, the more confidence the community will have and the more readily people will enforce its decisions.

If Morven's comments are accurate, if this ArbCom, or ArbCom in general, understands "recuse" as something that doesn't impinge upon advocacy at all and if it views it as something purely on a whim and not a matter of ethics, then we need to draft a policy that will be binding on ArbCom about when and how they can agree to a case. It shouldn't be necessary. It shouldn't be the case that people can disgrace ethics and think their personal awesomeness so great that common codes do not apply, but, if Morven's summary is correct, it is necessary. Geogre (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Petti...

...foggery ahead. Not that it matters much, dear hochgelahrte Magistra Bishonen, but I am forced to express a little doubt that ego loco is up to scratch, latinitas-wise. "Yo loc." or "soy loc.", or "eo. dem." perhaps (very perhaps, that is)? Thanks for listening, and should you ever be bothered by a hair in need of splitting, just consult yours truly. Kosebamse (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, forget the Latin. Eo. loc. is really short for "Estoy loco". "Yo! Loco!" is good too. Bishonen | talk 11:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC).

There are times when I find the humour on this page very infantile. Many of us use Latin phrases very often, instead of mocking I suggest you try to emmulate. Thank you. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why bother, dear Lady - aquila non capit muscam, n'est-ce pas? Kosebamse (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

'Zilla ambitious emulate little lady always! Come climb Reichstag together, Lady C! Lady possess spiderman suit? bishzilla _ROARR!! 12:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC).

RFAR

I have filed a request for arbitration and referred to your prior request. Jehochman ^Talk 08:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Major Major will need to agree to your request. He's expected back soon. Geogre (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I see everything twice! Nandesuka (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you also think people are trying to kill you? If so, you're perfectly sane, and so you have to continue arbitrating. Geogre (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking a look, always good to have a second set of eyes. MBisanz ^talk 17:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. (Even better if the eyes and the deathray are the 'zilla's..!) Ncmvocalist is probably offline, but that can't be helped. I've re-listed the RfC. Bishonen | talk 17:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC).

Yeah was offline. I'll probably continue (or try to, anyway) discuss those original reasons - even with Friday at the talk page. For now, I've closed+archived the Sceptre one given that he's retired. Should he return, then whatever dispute(s) that existed might no longer be resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Bishonen | talk 08:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

'I have a cunning plan' in best Baldrick voice

Does this make the whole shebang fairer and address both ways it can be rorted then? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[/me paints toenails, waggles them gently in the air to dry. Dreamily: ] Hmm? AOR? Oh. Talk to little stupid. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

.........and it sunk like a lead balloon, nevermind....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. Helpful and clear alternatives will be ignored or have a single conjunction debated. On that idiotic Tag team, I did analysis of the issue, why people get wound up, and why the solution would always evade them, and I got a lunatic warrior wanting to say that he was always only wound up by the fight against the evil Others. Geogre (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Aah well, back to article writing I guess...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I borrow your comment?

You may or may not notice that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise is open. I think "Disagreements with posted views ("disendorsements")" might be necessary as well for the heated case. However I'm not a native English speaker, so I want to paste your instruction (with little alteration) on it[22] if you don't mind. Could you allow me to use your wording for the page or could you make a section (because you're an admin in a good standing)? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, use it, of course, any way you like. I'm glad somebody cares about keeping RfC's from degenerating into shouting matches. I see there aren't any "disendorsements" so far, unless I'm missing something? So there's nothing that needs moving to talk yet. If something appears, you'll be safer not moving it yourself, since you have endorsed somebody's comment. Can't be too careful about being squeaky clean uninvolved, when you enforce something (even when it's just common sense). I suggest you let me or somebody else (El C, the stern and scary RfC enforcer, comes to mind) know if something needs moving, and we'll do it. People may miss your instructions, no matter how visibly you put them; but as soon as they grasp the principle by seeing it applied, you should be fine. Regards, Bishonen | talk 07:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC).

Thanks. I think following your advice would be a wise decision at this time.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

Bishonen, thanks for your attention to this matter. Re: your comments on "baiting", you might be amused by this. Perhaps I should take my own advice, huh? I'll admit that I've been mighty annoyed by DG, and I wouldn't have objected strenuously if a trigger-happy admin had blocked him. But what I should do is learn to overlook minor annoyances. Cheers. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, what a beautiful comment of yours in March [/me takes notes: "'not a license to poke DreamGuy with a stick'—good—must use" ] The minor can be desperately annoying, I know. Bishonen | talk 07:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC).

They are now poking me with sticks. Sigh. Jehochman ^Talk 07:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you may need a dose of Geogre's hip artwerkx. Though I think Peter Damian needs it worse. He got stifled. :-( What a great thing for the project, driving off these short-tempered article writers! [23] BTW isn't it time that uppity bishonen got warned or something? Maybe she'll get mad, too! [/me takes some more notes: "'my programmers'—brilliant—try to work in my programmers whenever posting on ANI—not easy in my case—but great stuff!" ]Bishonen | talk 08:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC).

Speaking of hip artwerkx, check this out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, keep the bishounen shiny! What a silly username it is, to be sure. Feminine-looking young men indeed..! Hard to remember, now, that I picked it to hide behind. A shy little thing, I thought of myself as, until I discovered the unsuspected depths of "Look at meeeeee!" after about a week of editing. Bishojou 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, keeping the theme going, it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. As the saying goes. "Strong martial arts abilities, sports talent, high intelligence, or comedic flair". As the man said when he was laying linoleum, ye've got tae have a flair for it. . . dave souza, talk 18:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:

I'd like to say that I 110% disagree with you moving my comment at the RfC for Sceptre. Your comment was "Use positive endorsements only", yet MBisanz's were frankly nothing other than negative. In fact, his whole involvement was nothing other than negative, and served no purpose whatsoever. The saved RfC now gives the deliberately misleading impression everyone agrees with Mbisanz, when they certainly do not. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand the concepts "positive endorsements", nor "disendorsements", then try reading my instructions on the RfC page more attentively, and click on the link I provided to the RFC guidelines. [24] When you have grasped the principles involved, you may come here to impugn my motives; not before. And don't try to dominate an RFC again by spattering quarrelsome contradictions on it. Take the trouble to write a view of your own, as other people do, and see if anybody's willing to endorse that. Bishonen | talk 11:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC).

Unaddressed "parcel"

Hi Stifle. I noticed you said "I apologize for my actions in this matter" on the RFAR page. But... see, it's pointless, surely, to apologize to nobody in particular. Well, I think it is. Who is the addressee of your apology? The community? (why?) The arbitration committee? (double why?) Or the unsubstantial air? I'm completely assuming that you're sincere about wanting to apologize—if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't bother to write this. But please consider addressing your apology to the person actually offended. [25] [26])
Please note that I'm by no means asking, or telling, you to apologize to Peter Damian. I don't think anybody ought to ask another person to apologize, ever. All I'm doing is pointing out that you seem to be trying to apologize—for what you did to Peter Damian—but missing the mark. You've posted a parcel without an address on it. I think it's bound to get lost in the mails. Bishonen | talk 14:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC).

Well, he's invoked a right to vanish, and his email is not enabled so I couldn't contact him directly. I've left a message for him as you suggested. Just don't set Bishzilla on me ;) Stifle (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

['Zilla, who had already popped the little Stifle in her mouth, spits him out again, regretfully. ] Mmmmhm. Pity. Smelled good. Oh all right ! [Puts down little Stifle, watches benevolently as he witters in circles. Magnanimously: ] Eat little user some other day! bishzilla _ROARR!! 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC).

And now Jimbo has banned him. Hmmm. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Your unsigned edit on WP:AE"

I've gone through three different versions of this, each one less offended by your rather non-AGF and less-than-brilliant comments on my usertalk. This version will simply call your comments foolish. Your comments in the AE discussion were distracting and disruptive; they did not speak to the specific matter of DreamGuy, and instead were yet another opportunity for you and Elonka to slug it out. DG is aware of this, and plays upon both of your weaknesses. If you are going to assume less than good faith, it's a lot smarter for you to put it on the person who actually deserves that scrutiny. No one has ever baited DreamGuy, and - let's face it - anyone using that infantilizing argument deserves to be called on it. DreamGuy is neither an infant or an innocent; if he were such, to be so easily baited, then he doesn't deserve to be a member of our community - and certainly not someone worthy of our continued efforts at rehabilitation (or at least restriction).
You are going to find that when you don't carry your personal arguments with other folk into unrelated mediums, you will find people take you more seriosly; if you don't want to be talked to like you are a child, then maybe don't act like a child. I am sorry that you are upset by my scolding you for acting thusly, and ever more disappointed that you chose to impart some grand strategy on my part to prevent me from being blocked by you (who, according to WP:LOA, isn't even an admin). Don't threaten with blocking those who called you a silly prat, especially when you don't have the tools to block someone. To be absolutely clear, I think that you are too involved in your discussion with Elonka and your apparent favoritism of DreamGuy to really pretend to be neutral.
I am going to write your comment off as someone blowing off steam at having their wheel war interrupted. Your argument with Elonka belongs on Elonka's page, or her RfC. Not in the DreamGuy AE complaint. Glad we cleared that all up. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[/Bishonen tugs absentmindedly on the leash of the huge green monster lolloping faithfully by her side. ] Down, Bishzilla! What have I told you about blocking people for acting like jerks? Come on, be the bigger... er, creature! Little user Arcayne will sleep on it and think better of his strange ramblings. Probably just frustrated nobody shows any interest in his own repetitious screenfuls on WP:AE. Didn't you learn some empathy in admin school, 'Zilla? Bishonen | talk 16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC).

Roarrr? User rude? bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC).

Never mind. Rise above, Bishzilla! Bishonen | talk 16:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC).

[Disappointed. ] No block.. [Hopefully: ] Little atomic deathray, maybe? [27] bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC).

Not today. Bishonen | talk 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC).

So, that magical discussion focused on proving you have a dupe account that is an admin? Hmm. Okay. Duly noted. Not really worried. Also notedwas how you managed to avoid addressing the rest of it in your screenfuls of attacks at AE. Bysh, heal thyself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, you actually are a useless prat. If you can't understand Bishonen's comments, perhaps you could get someone who can read to explain them to you. Don't worry: I'm not an admin, so you needn't worry, since you only care about who can block you. (If this is the level of discourse he brings everywhere with him, it's no wonder people don't respond to him.) Utgard Loki (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what part of Bish's comments were you under the impression that I didn't understand? The threat of blocking, or the bad faith assumption that that's all I care about? And you are going to be served rather well by being a lot more polite than your previous response. I think we might have interacted before, but I am not sure where. It certainly didn't warrant being called a prat. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I do not think your repeated calls for DreamGuy to be blocked or banned are helpful, nor can I condone the way you have been badgering Bishonen. You made incorrect accusations of sock puppetry against DreamGuy at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/206.176.204.44 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DreamGuy. He accused User:Fat Cigar of being a sock puppet, which turned out to be correct. Note the distinction. We are here to write an encyclopedia. This is neither a debating society, nor a boxing ring. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 20:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and what he said above. You are also contravening my personal civility policy [28] So get off Bishonen's talk page and take it some place else. OK? Giano (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Apparently, I haven't made myself clear, J; for that, I apologize. I did not call for DG to be blocked or banned (note that I am not the author of the AE complaint). When I discovered that the anon was not him, I retracted the notice on his talk, and noted the unconnectedness to the complaint and checkuser request, apologized to DG and let the matter go. Apparently, you may have missed in all the furor to seek out bad guys. As for discovering that FatCigar was indeed a sock, yay. When someone is wrong, I expect them to man up and apologize. I did, when I incorrectly accused DG of using anons again. Mistakes happen. It isn't as if the guy hadn't ever done that before, and you know that mistakes about that sort of thing happen quite frequently.

Additionally, I did not - and have not - "badgered" Bishonen. I suggested that he and Elonka go somewhere other than AE to continue their argument. Bish took that as a personal slight and made a fairly hair-brained accusation. When I responded here, Bish chose the opportunity to avoid the subject and further threaten me with blocking. Utgard then called me a prat for pointing out that he missed the point of the the comments at both AE and here. Finally, Giano chimes in talking about how I am breaking his personal policy (which is incorrect). Golly, being called uncivil...by Giano?

Yeah. I'm clearly the bad guy here. Maybe you folks can dig up just a little bit more good faith. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And now, I am done. What was a discussion between me an Bishonen has ballooned into a free-for-all. Yep, no cabal at all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You've said that you apologized to DreamGuy so many times that you probably remember it that way by now. Diff, please? Bishonen | talk 20:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC).

Well, I actually assumed that you could look at a page history (being the leashed "owner" of an admin and all). (1) and then, more pointedly (2), amid the unfriendly response. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Those? The first isn't within shouting distance of an apology; the second is insult and sarcasm. How surprising that there was an unfriendly response. Incidentally, I see you choose to taunt and abuse Giano for making a civil remark. I'm increasingly convinced you'll feel badly about your behavior today, Arcayne, the more you think about it. I simply cannot believe you became a Wikipedia editor for the purpose of flaming and disparaging people the way you've been doing. I'm not angry—I'm rather sorry to see you posting stuff you're sure to be ashamed of—but I've had enough of it on my page. Please try to wind down. I'm afraid I'm going to blank any further posts from you. Bishonen | talk 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC).

A moral leson for the young

I have been looking at poor old Sarah Palin, my attention drawn by so many frequent edits and screams from so many, funny looking woman, sort of poor man's Joanna Lumley. I can't imagine anyone is going to vote for a mousse-hunting granny who was daft enough to call her children Track, Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig - odd choices I wonder why. Perhaps all Americans are related to people with these names, but keep it very quiet. Funny lot - the Americans. I expect being Swedish you hunt mousse all the time, I wonder what Track and Bristol are in Swedish? Personally, I feel sorry for the boyfriend - just imagine there you are aged 17 having a little secret nookie with your girl - and the world is bright and beautiful, then suddenly bang, not only is your girlfriend "up the duff", but her Mom turns out to be anti-abortion and surprise candidate for Vice presidentcy, and you have to stand at a a bloody airport shaking hands with a smiling John McCain - who probably wants to kill you, while the world's press snaps the happy event, just in case there is one person in the civilized world who has not yet heard of your behavior. Poor bastard, he won't forget to take precautions again will he? - probably won't ever need to! Giano (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The moose is loose!

Moose or mousse? One is an entrée, the other a desert. Jehochman ^Talk 17:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your prospective vice-president - you tell me? Giano (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Given her hairstyle, I suspect Giano's spelling is quite correct. Risker (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rats that was going to be my joke unfortunately I had to wait to get home. O well. Peter Damian (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer mine with barbecue sauce. If she owns guns or a pickup truck, she will do well. In Alaska there a twice as many men as women, but there are fortunately many spare moose. Jehochman ^Talk 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

He will, too forget to take precautions. Palin forbids them. She believes that children should only be educated on how to abstain from sex, and she models that behavior in her own life, by having a baby per throw. Her daughter couldn't take precautions, because she was abstaining from being educated about it. Don't miss the fact that Mrs. Palin also bans books -- the pages might be made into prophylactics, if they're vellum. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could not vote for anyone whose voice sounds like an electric can opener. Giano (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

<guffaws!> Geez - I just heard a commentator on the BBC explaining the problem with Hillary was her schoolmarmishness - but then Palin!!! The Ann Widdecombe of the Americas - poor bastards. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Vellum prophylactics? Ouch. That in itself would be an argument for abstinence. Perhaps the pro-lifers should instead target the condom industry... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

She looks like she is probably very very very civil. Giano (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin is a poster child for how well "Abstinence only Sex Education" actually works. (i.e. more or less "not at all") ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is very unfair she has to be, and I hope all parents are now thinking "There, but for the grace of God go I" Perhaps now, even her ignorant mother will wake up to the real world Giano (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps hell is freezing over just now... since when are fundamentalist American politicians interested in the real world? I mean, someone who advocates abstinence only sex education, capital punishment, creationism, the vandalising of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and civilian's individual rights to bear arms? Just wondering. Kosebamse (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bear legs

Arms? In Alaska they are usually called legs. Paul August ☎ 15:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)