Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:27, 16 November 2005

TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK

Please post at the foot of the page!

My saved bits, Second subpage

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10

Nobody beats Ozymandius, Used Car King!

File:Mallard-drake-grooming.jpg

File:Mallard-drake-grooming.jpg

Ducks are better than drakes. Geogre 13:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Ozymandias has left the building. Are we talking about anything? Is it time to look on the Peterborough Chronicle and despair? No, not yet. Bishonen | talk 15:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No, no subject. It's just that I was tired of the goat pictures, and, since you had archived, I thought that my duck was better than their goats. There was a wonderful cartoon, once, by Gahan Wilson, I think, with an empty pedestal, trunkless hands, and a grim visage in the sand, and "Nobody Beats Ozymandius TV Appliance King" on the pedestal. I stole the caption. Otherwise, there is Eliot's:

"And the wind shall say

Here were decent, godless people. Their only monument

The asphault road and a thousand lost golf balls"

which is along the same lines. Time to go watch Bergman's Winter Light and feel the joy. Geogre 20:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

ddg... I was bored :)  ALKIVAR™ 06:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Shame on you! Shame! Shame! Shame! for goosing Bishonen. (Lately, three anons have vandalized my page to tell me that I'm ugly. That's so disappointing, as I've been dying for a date with a braindead kiddie vandal.) Geogre 20:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin request

Deja vu? Could you move Kiruna Municipality to Kiruna? Thanks. Fred-Chess 13:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure. You realize I'm taking your word that there's consensus for this stuff, Fred? Bishonen | talk 14:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Wiglaf was once blamed for a move of Scanian (linguistics) to Skånska, but I explained to everyone it was on my explicit request, and so I take the blame for it, if any. What else can I do? Nominate at Requested Moves and wait 2 weeks....? The alternative is to just move it by hand, and to be frank, I would prefered that to RM.

Fred-Chess 15:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies if my response to your comments were in the wrong place?

This was not an RfC/user nor an RfA/evidence, but a general RfC so I am not quite sure of the ettiquette. I should have added a "comments" section after the voting section?--Silverback 14:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, an Outside view is meant to be just that, not a dialogue, and then other people get to freely make up their minds about whether to endorse it or not. AFAIK the standard is that all comments except actual endorsements go on Talk. I didn't want to argue about it, with the warning example of FuelWagon fresh in mind—look at the furious hair-splitting edit war about such matters that he's waging on his RFC—so I just removed it. It doesn't matter, my comment obviously wasn't the result of a day's profound thought in any case. It was nice of you to get in touch. Please feel free to remove my note about having removed the section, if you like. Bishonen | talk 15:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Frustration...

I'm frustrated with a user in an AfD debate who is repeatedly substantially revising, moving or completely removing comments to which I have already replied. I find it disgusting. Can't somebody be blocked for that kind of dishonest and deceptive behaviour? Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hans Boepple. (BTW, Boepple should probably be deleted, but he seems like a borderline case, with notability according to WP:MUSIC perhaps depending on the existence of more recordings than those so far unearthed.) Tupsharru 23:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Count to ten, Tups. I'm assuming good faith, and have edited the AfD page to conform to your request to We99 (at least I hope I have; the History is so long that I've only taken the first and last bits of it into consideration), and left a note on his/her Talk page also. Assuming that this is a new user, they're very likely not technically capable of retrieving the original version themselves; I don't know about you, but I didn't venture anywhere near the History tab for months when I first came here. I hope it works out, please let me know if the problems continue. How's Uppsala University doing? Bishonen | talk 01:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy Gustavus Adolphus Day! The Uppsala University article isn't really progressing. I'm to busy with other things, and although I still edit, I'm right now in a disillusioned phase with respect to Misplaced Pages and don't feel motivated to spend too much effort on any article. Tupsharru 21:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

Bishonen, if it's not too much trouble, I'd like you not to alter my comments. If I don't have anything new to say, and I am repeating myself, I should be revising my comments, not adding repeated comments and wasting everyone's time. If you read the revision carefully, I'm not making new arguments but merely refining arguments that have been already made. If Tupsharru feels strongly about the PhD not making a difference, let him make his argument. I believe I have made mine. If you feel something needs to be added in order to make Tupsharru's comment understandable, do so. But if I am forced to repeat my "latest" version everytime I want to change something, there won't be enough room for the next person to disagree with me. Thanks for your consideration. We99 01:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

With respect, We99, it's not you so much who are affected by your revision technique, it's the people you discuss with. As you can see on the AfD page, and on this page of mine, Tupsharru (an experienced and respected editor) is finding it impossible to deal with. Your present system is obviously wasting his time. It also flies in the face of Misplaced Pages policy. Please don't insist. Bishonen | talk 01:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. OK, edit conflict--it would really be a help if you posted a note in one go, rather than add to it after I've started to reply. You're not forced to repeat your latest version, only whatever new thing you need to say. (Why, though, necessarily say anything new, if you "don't have anything new to say"?) As for "not enough room for the next person"--yes there will always be enough room. Misplaced Pages is not paper. Bishonen | talk 01:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Bishonen, there is an upper limit to the discussion for deletion. If you don't believe me, try adding a bunch of text and you'll know there is an upper limit. We99 02:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This is getting a bit surrealistic. I assure you the page has as much room as you and the next person could possibly need if there were 20 times as many of you. I'm sorry you find it inconvenient to leave your original input on the page, I can understand how it could be, but it's what you have to do if you're going to respect policy and other editors. Please try to adjust to standard Misplaced Pages practice. Now you'll have to excuse me, it's the middle of the night where I am. Bishonen | talk 02:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

--Second opinion, here: Bishonen is, in fact, being very polite. It is policy that one is not allowed to change the text of one's vote. If you no longer agree with what you had said, or if you believe that what you have written is inappropriate, you may strike out your previous comment, but you leave it in place, exactly as it was and then write whatever new you have to say underneath the original. To perform the strike-through, place <s> at the beginning of the text to be stricken and </s> at the end of the stricken text. That way, it remains in place so that other readers/editors/voters can see what comment had drawn original comment. Again, do not change the text of your vote. If your vote contains a personal attack, and you wish to remove the insult, you are better off using the strike-through; however, if you had been particularly insulting and wish to remove the text of the insult, you may, but only if you put in its place text indicating that you have removed an insult that you made. (Do not remove insults written by others. Leave that for an administrator to do.) This is not optional behavior. Geogre 15:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC) (Posted on the user's talk page as well.)

Hiya

Hiya back! Your welcome warms me. —Theo (Talk) 21:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh?

You wanted to experience a blocking?!? Wow; hopefully you won't get autoblocked. You know, I just would have moved a couple of pages Willy-style ;). Cheers, Bratsche 04:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Some surprises there: that Dragonfly blocked me at all, even though I only said "I ought to try being blocked, there's a lot of stuff I don't know about how it works", and the little... scalliwag blocked me for an hour even though I replied "not now, dear" to the whole storm of block offers that arose on IRC. And secondly, even though the autoblocker did bite me, it didn't add the usual 24 hours. Perhaps that feature has been discontinued, it wouldn't be any too soon. And thirdly, the thing i really wanted to know: no, I can't even open the edit mode! IOW, I can't copy it, IOW, I can't work offline, either. Hmm. This is all very useful information. See you, Ben! Bishonen | talk 04:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

How did you do that?

In your edit summary for you current post to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Silverback/Evidence, there is some kind of little arrow thing containing a link to the section you just edited. I am curious about how you did that. Mind sharing? Does is the length of the link, still subject to the character limit of the edit summary window? -- thanx, --Silverback 13:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ouch, I just noticed that some of my edit summaries already have that in them, but others don't. So, I guess I already "know" how to do it, just not consistently. 8-) Must be a system characteristic based on the nature of the edit.--Silverback 13:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It's there if you edit the section, but not if you edit the page. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh... yeah, that's it! :-) Bishonen | talk 14:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite 04:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez FAC

If you have a minute, would you mind taking a second look at the daughter articles and adjusting or removing your vote accordingly? I believe the ones that are currently linked to are all now presentable. The footnote system is now fixed and fully functioning, and all single paragraph sections have either been built up, merged with other topics. or eliminated. Regards, Saravask 09:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I just did, the minute before I saw this. Sheesh, there is no keeping up with you! Bishonen | talk 10:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

responding here, since incident page is protected

I didn't move Carnildo's post, I had an edit conflict with him when responding to your post, and so I moved my post and maintained the cronology via indents as is my practice. The attraction is to make sure admins know that this is a second violation. I looked at the intro and didn't see any instructions on where to add it, and since some pages instruct to add at the top, that is what I did. I admit I was confused about that.--Silverback 01:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a vandalbot, the page had to be locked. Don't you feel like admitting the second heading was ridiculous while you're about it? If you want a post to be taken seriously, it's just a bad idea to have the heading be a mini-rant. Bishonen | talk 01:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I just thought it was a true statement. I notice people don't like it when rants are true. Admins should do the right thing even if the person reporting it is unpopular and disgustingly right. I find being unpopular serves as a good integrity test for the admins.--Silverback 01:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A true statement? What's that got to do with anything? I hope you noticed I kept the statement, word for word. I'm talking about its (lack of) appropriateness as a heading. Please don't play games. Bishonen | talk 01:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Just the user name is more succinct. I will stick to that in the future. BTW, that was one powerful vandal bot. Can it really create usernames that quick, or does it have to build up a stockpile to draw on later? Have you seen it before? I wonder where it went after the page was protected.--Silverback 01:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No idea, I have no insight into these matters. I'm signing off, it's 3 AM. Bishonen | talk 02:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Fun fun fun

Look at the number of edits to Peterborough Chronicle today, just today. It has had quite a few very dedicated vandals, plus. Oh, and if you thought that linking God and Bible was too much, check out the "helpful" edits. Stuff like world is linked now. Geogre 10:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm watching it. Prolly as you say people from Peterborough, disappointed not to find their school mentioned or something. The Cleanup page used to exhort everybody to "wikify" everything, though not so much recently, I see; I noticed linking was often the only "cleanup" that would actually get done. :-( See how lightly linked The Relapse is? If it wasn't being totally ignored, I expect that would be rectified by now, with repentance, love, virtue, and seduction linked in the first paragraph. Oh, and 1696, of course. Bishonen | talk 11:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

These feebs are hitting it at a furious pace. I have to teach from 8-12, and I only hope that wakeful Europeans are noticing it, because I'll be unable to do much during that time. I have a feeling that what I'd really like to do is revert all the way back to Haeleth's replacement of dashes with emdash, but no point in even thinking about that until the thing's off the main page. People have 1) tried to turn all spellings to British (incompletely, of course), 2) link everything, 3) change hard words into simple ones ("dearth" to "death"). The only other helpful one so far was probably linking philology, since I have to agree that that's an uncommon term. I knew the main page would get tiny fingers clawing at it, but I never anticipated this many. Geogre 11:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, people do watch the FA of the day. See how I've only managed to be first in there the once? Of course I've been asleep, also. But I'm awake now. Bishonen | talk 11:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! I've gotten to block three vandals now. This is so much...fun? Kill one, and another takes its place. The world isn't going to run out of stupid any time soon. Geogre 15:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Never have I seen a dusty academic article generate so many attempts at vandalism. I could understand it if there were anything interesting about the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles to the lay reader. BTW, news at work that makes me push the effects of the happy pills. :-( I've got to call my headhunters...again. I so hate this. Geogre 19:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No fun. :-( Mail. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the questions re: The Relapse. Those are very good questions Saravask raises -- extremely perceptive. I suppose we can lean too much on our other, survey articles and think, "Well, gosh, we've said that the libertines were on the run by the 1690s so much and that William of Orange is the reason so many times that we ought not say it here." We're wrong, of course. What was news in Restoration drama and Restoration literature (or Augustan drama) is news still in Chrononhotonthologos (a play I propose to write about soon but which I need to learn to spell consistently). Geogre 03:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Disagreement" about block

'Sokay, I figured as much. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't sound like I was attached to the idea of only a 24 hour block. Happy Friday, wherever you are! Dmcdevit·t 08:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Harro5

Hey Bishonen. I know you've seen the complaints by a group of editors on my talk page, and just want to say that I will not allow my good work over at the Schools Portal to be disrupted by these guys. I agree I got angry, but also wish to point out that I've vowed not to edit the St Michael's Grammar School pages any more, as told here. So basically, I've moved on, but if any more unfounded complaints or vandalism to any pages relating to my long work here on Misplaced Pages (eg. my page, Caulfield Grammar School, the Schools Portal) I will come back to you or another admin looking to see people blocked for what really is a group trying to stand over me as I do what I see as good work here. Thanks for listening. Harro5 19:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm going to let you deal with this. This image, Image:Simonage1.jpg, is used in the disputed and currently AFDed Simon Gipson article. Follow the link to its source and you'll see its from The Age, but is listed as public domain by a member of the editing group who listed the RFC on me. See the newspaper's copyright page and it explicitly says all material is copyrighted. Image:Simongipson.jpg is also untagged. Thanks. Harro5 20:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Dealt with your issues as mentioned above. Although I do feel it would have been more constructive to post this on the talk page of the artices, or photos. Sadly further highlights your true motives. Beyondcapricorn 06:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Replying to your comments on the RFC talk page, am I required to try to initiate some mediation or an ending to this problem? I still fail to see how I am really at fault here. The suggestion I have an overt bias is nonsense - I began the Wesley College, Melbourne and Scotch College, Melbourne articles, have contributed to or edited numerous school articles, run a portal featuring numerous schools - and I am being chastisied by persistent vandals who decided to take it more seriously than most. Please give me some advice on what I need to do next. Does RFC have any major consequences? I've never really been involved in the dispute process on Misplaced Pages. Your statement, and the amount of support it has received, seem to vindicate me. Thanks in advance. Harro5 06:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Harro, RfC is a request for comments from the community. It isn't punitive (though if the community is unhappy with either party, it won't be a comfortable process for that party, obviously). It has the double purpose of a) making the people involved see how the community looks on actions such as theirs, and b) giving a basis of evidence for if the dispute resolution process is taken the next step, to a Request For Arbitration, RFAr. So far indeed the community seems to vindicate you. Insofar as the process is collecting evidence for an RFAr by anybody, it would be one by you, and you might want to consider that (though I have a better suggestion below). Badly-founded RFCs will do that, they bite the side that brought them. That happens a lot, since they're often brought by the most litigious members of the community, and those least aware of how their actions look to others. To answer your concrete question: no, you're not required to try mediation or anything like that, that's what the other side should do (should already have done, as I've told them, but they seem to be as suspicious of my motives as they are of yours). That's the formal situation, but there's another way of looking at it: You're an experienced editor, they're newbies, you might want to be the bigger man here, and try to ask for mediation anyway. There's WP:TINMC ...oh, no, there isn't, I just looked, and WP:TINMC aren't taking on new cases, they're too backlogged. OK, then, there's the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee, take a look at their page Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation. Your best bet there is to get in touch with the acting chair, User:Redwolf24, directly, he's very quick and decisive and would steer you right. If you're an IRCer, the easiest way is to speak with Red on #wikipedia, he's there most of the time. (Well, given the time zone thing, not most of your time, he's in Canada I think, but you'll get hold of him easily, anyway.) If not, use e-mail or a note on his page. It seems to me that mediation might have a good chance of working, and if it did, it would be an advantage to everybody involved. Not to mention a big advantage to ArbCom, backlogged and overwhelmed as they are. Plus, if you bring an RFAr, I can see the ArbCom recommending mediation as a first step.

• P.S. to Beyondcapricorn: in replying to Harro above I'm trying to inform you as well, I hope you're reading this. Note especially what I say about the routes to mediation, I didn't know about WP:TINMC being backlogged when I discussed with your friend, the IP I've been speaking with on the RFC talkpage (this would be easier if he had a username). If you care at all about getting community support, as I assume you do (or why bring an RFC), I have two urgent bits of advice for both of you:

1. Stop insisting you have already provided evidence for "trying and failing to solve the dispute", in the face of my explanations. It shows disrespect for our practices, which annoys people, and disregard for truth and likelihood, which just makes a bad impression.
2. Stop referring to Harro5's "true motives", as you do yet again, above: that he's activated by school rivalry, hatred for your school, and such. In the first place it's insulting, I'm not sure if you can hear yourself and put yourself in the other person's shoes in that regard. Also it's just too childish, it erodes other people's respect for you (not him, you). Worst, it flies in the face of a really basic civility principle here, which is Assume good faith. Motives aren't even relevant, because nobody but the person in question has access to them. Just don't go there. Talk about actions and words! And do it much more specifically than you've been doing. Give examples, give diffs. Those, if you have them, might actually impress people who are neutral on this issue, while your large, sweeping gestures in the direction of "obviously-this-is-the-case" just ... don't have that effect. --Bishonen | talk 10:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Beyondcapricorn and Comradeash have seemingly retracted from the RFC completely, and have started doing some useful stuff . Hopefully this matter may have resolved itself within their group. Its quite likely, as with many incidents involving noobs, that they didn't think it would take so much effort to get their point across and have simply forgotten it all. Let's see if they continue this more positive trend. Harro5 19:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup. Beyondcapricorn has been doing large-scale crossing-out of all his posts relating to this business, and 220.253.48.90 seems to be getting left holding the baby RFC. It never did have any evidence of attempted resolution, and now it doesn't even have the requisite signatures, after beyondcapricorn removed his own and also MacBandit's (hmmmm-sock puppetry?). See the notes at the top of the page, here's mine. So the RFC's getting delisted tomorrow, unless 220.253.48.90 gets his act together considerably, and also getting deleted, provided you want it to be. Don't see why you would, exactly—I'd keep it around if I were you. Anyway, I hope 220.253.48.90 is also finding something better to do, and I rather suspect he sees the pointlessness of going on with the RFC and is content to have it delisted. Still, in any case, I would point you and him towards User:Redwolf24 and mediation. It's a good process, absolutely not punitive, and might make everybody involved feel like they've got peace rather than mere ceasefire. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it up there as a record of my actions being vindicated. These sorts of disputes have popped up on occasion when students discover Misplaced Pages and are outraged that people from other schools are editing that info, so it might come in handy as precedent. Also, I have been approached tentatively about a future RFA, and while this RFC has shelved that for a little while longer (maybe till after Christmas provided no more problems), it alsways helps with full disclosure. Thanks for all your help, and for being a rational mediator while I tried to fight my way out of the corner I was being forced into. Lastly, and please just a quick note on my talk page, do you feel I should stay away from the St Michaels article or stay around to clean it up a bit? Having a look at it now - St Michael's Grammar School - its probably even messier than the Caulfield article was when you helped me out with it a couple of months ago. Thanks again. Harro5 23:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Help

Hi could you look at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Objectivist poets for me? I'm stuck. Filiocht | ] 08:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If anything, I think there is possibly less interest in the 20th century stuff I do; I'm not about to write on Plath or Heaney, for example. I plug on without any really clear reason in my head, other than writing those articles is the thing I most enjoy doing here. Thanks for the sig tip. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm hoping to take a look at it today or tomorrow. A little ennui over on my side as left me fit for nothing but squishing speedy deletes and thundering on VfD. (I do think Station Island is one of the finest single collections of poems I've read in ages, although none of Heaney's other volumes have been as moving for me. The article we have on him stresses his nature poetry, but Station Island is a very different book from all those -- much more Modernist.) (As for Plath, it hardly matters what one writes: desperate fans will rewrite it.) Geogre 11:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Tricks?

Thanks for the message, we'll see in a second if the sig thing is fixed or not.Tricks aren't very good, I thought I might feel better about the place after a time away, but its still pretty much the same nicht wahr. The response to Rhe Relapse was disappointing, but frankly what were you realistically expecting, knowing the place as you do? FAC seems to have become a strangle place these days of increasingly new requirements, demands, and needs which I have decided I no longer wish to attempt to meet; in fact I shall not try to meet them. Rather than judging each subject on its own individual requirements everything is now required to conform to blanket diktats, often legislated by people who seem to have little better to do than enforce them, when their time would be far better spent writing a page themselves, rather than passing comment on anything from the legal validity of copyright to English grammar, both subjects on which they are generally and factually completely ignorant.

At least The Relapse was justly featured, and apart from the one mild objection (was that another new diktat?) those that read it seemed to like it, it just lacked the necessary tabloidness in the title to pull them in my new title should do that (although that's not why I chose it), but God the google hits do seem to be more gynaecological than architectural! Shame it's not going to FA, it would have been fun to see people demanding "Family" after the Surname section, it's technically correct as it is for an Italian family as it is. Wish I could make people read The Relapse, perhaps it will become heavily vandalised then you will know people are at least looking at it. As ever Giano | talk 13:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Marsden is back

User:Marsden is back, using his IP address, 69.138.215.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and apparently spending most of his time reverting those he doesn't like, or who he has been asked to revert. Now he's being even more disruptive; in order to avoid going over the 3RR, he's added a link to a bogus hate site at Self-hating Jew instead, and posting trolling text to a bunch of talk pages (including yours) about "nigger lovers". I'm considering a 1 week block for disruption at this point, unless you think you or someone else should do it first. Jayjg 17:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any admins who "like" him. I think I'm just going to have to block him, and post about it on WP:AN/I. Jayjg 17:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That was my little joke, Jayjg. Bishonen|talk 17:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I think his recent activities have made me a little humourless. I'll try to loosen up a bit, as I go report his blocking on WP:AN/I. Jayjg 17:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I responded to your concerns on my Rfa

My response is in the Rfa after your vote. I'm sorry you felt that I had done the wrong thing as I was only trying to keep two editors from going to war and that is all.--MONGO 20:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I'm sorry that you don't find anything constructive or worth learning from in my comments. Bishonen|talk 20:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess I am pretty dense as I guess you're telling me that next time I need to stay out of the middle of things? Accepting that I must have missed your point, please explain so I won't make the same mistake twice. I'm not trying to be obtuse, I guess I'm just tired, man. I need clarification and being blunt with an ogre like me might be best.--MONGO 21:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I read through your commentary and understand now. I appreciate that you took the time to post what you did and I can see now that my efforts probably seemed very obtrusive. I did not have all the facts and I was wrong to interfere without them. I did not think that Silverback was in the right, if that helps with clarification. I watch WP:AN a lot and I saw that situation and thought I could make a difference...when ElC and 172 explained the situation I was unreceptive but it was clear to me that Silverback was about to get in over his head so I "told" him to back off. I shouldn't have meddled. I have not gotten involved in such a situation since so I did learn from it. Thanks again for taking the time to post the well researched commentary to qualify your vote. I do appreciate that very much.--MONGO 21:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)