Misplaced Pages

User talk:Bishonen: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:10, 27 March 2007 editGiano II (talk | contribs)22,233 edits →Oh well all's well that....: Forget it← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:20, 25 December 2024 edit undoBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,260 edits →I was responding to an edit summary I saw from User:Doug Weller: :-) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{bots|deny=all}}
{| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px blue; background:rgb(255,240,253);margin=5"
| align=center|Talk archives'''<br>]
|-
|
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
|}
<br>


<div style="position:fixed; bottom:16px; left:16px; z-index:2;">]</div>
{{archives|box-width=275px |style=background-color:#e8e6fe|image=File:Interior view of Stockholm Public Library.jpg|image-size=225px}}


{{-}}
:]
== October music ==
<br style="clear:both" />
{{User QAIbox
:::<big>'''Wikimood'''</big>
| image = Dahlias, Elisengarten, Aachen.jpg
| image_upright = 1.1
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
You may remember ], my ] as ]. ] was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with ] mentioned in story and music. --] (]) 12:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:Beautiful, ]. ] &#124; ] 21:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC).
:: Thank you! I made Leif Segerstam my ] story today. -] (]) 08:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:: ] is about a composer and choir conductor, listen to his . - ] was about a Bach cantata. As this place works, it's on the Main page ''now'' because of the date. I sort of like it because today is the birth date of my grandfather who loved and grew dahlias like those pictured. --] (]) 14:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world ]. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted ] in 2016. --] (]) 16:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)


==User:151.124.106.64==
<br>
I've extended your block on this account. This is yet another incarnation of a multiple sock that has been repeatedly reappearing over may months. The now expired short protection on my talk page was to stop previous attacks from other SPAs obviously linked to this. If you are not happy with my action, please feel free to do as you see fit ] - ] 08:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
{| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px blue; background:rgb(235,250,244);margin=5"
:Thanks, ], your block length is fine. However, did you notice I hardblocked them (in my second block)? I ticked "Apply block to logged-in users from this IP address", because after checking the IP's contributions, I realised that the attack on you on your page had to come from some way you had disobliged them — say, blocked them — ''not'' in the form of this IP but in some other incarnation — likely an account, or more than one account. Your longer block is not a hardblock. Should it be? ] &#124; ] 11:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC).
| align=center|Bookmarks'''<br>]
::Sorry, missed that, hard blocked now. There are some giveaways with this vandal in that their other edits follow a pattern, notably references to Samuel Claesson ] - ] 12:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
|-
|
]
<br>
]
<br>
]
<br>
<br>
]
<br>
]
<br>
]
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
|}


== Macrobiotic Diet ==


Firstly, neither of those comments about Bon Courage were "attacks". If you read their talk page, you'll find it is littered with other people complaining about their editing warring.
== RFC minor formatting ==
*Could you maybe help ] with some minor formatting/procedural issues at ]? I am not entirely familiar with the RFC formatting and procedure, as a specific RFC to users and not articles. Thank you for your time. ] 00:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC).


Secondly, neither was my editing "disruptive".
::I don't blame you. It's quite misleading that user RFCs and article RFCs even share a name, as they function and are formatted quite differently. The most important thing about user RFCs is right at the top of the template: there must be a co-signer of the RFC, somebody who has attempted (independently of Anynobody) to resolve the issues with JA. Both Anynobody and the other editor must sign, ''and provide evidence of their efforts to resolve the problem'' within 48 hours of creating the RFC. Evidence means diffs. Everything else can pretty much wait, but the 48-hour thing is obligatory, and if it's not complied with, the RFC is highly likely to be deleted as soon as the 48 hours are up.


The Misplaced Pages has strict policies, which surely you as an admin must be aware off including; a) the removal of any content that is not supported by references, b) NPOV/bias, c) discussion on the talk page,
::What I'd prefer to do is move the page into Anynobody's own space, in other words give it a name of the form ]; stop the people who have already been asked to comment; move it back into Misplaced Pages space later, when it's a bit more ready to meet the world; and start those 48 hours then instead of now. OK? Then I could give some help and advice tomorrow, as I'm about to go to bed right now. (Such is my timezone.) If you reply now—''right'' now—I can move the page; if not, please confer with A and move it yourself if you know how (it's easy), or ask any experienced user. For instance one of the freaks that hang out at this page of mine. And don't list it on ] yet! ] | ] 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
:::Did not get to your comment early enough, but added myself as a party and some evidence. Let myself or ] know how it looks/what should be done at this point... Also, what is the best way to notify previously involved parties about the existence of the page in a neutral manner? ] 16:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Well... I'm actually a little frustrated that you asked my advice and then ignored it. Changing the page into a userpage until it's ready is the way to go IMO, especially because then there'll be time to deal properly with the "dispute resolution" thing. Changing it into a userpage can be done any time as long as nobody has commented, after that it'll be too late. But never mind, this is what to do with an RFC that's already in Misplaced Pages space (=has a name beginning with "Misplaced Pages"):
*The name of the page should be ]. This is standard, and Anynobody, who's making the request, isn't supposed to be in the title.
*The page must be listed and linked on ].
*About notifying people, that's a little delicate, indeed. The only person who must be notified, and perhaps the only one who should be, is Justanother. If you want to spread the news, you obviously have to be careful not to simply notify people who have issues with Justanother. Not sure what you mean by "previously involved". Involved in what? Anynobody seems to be asking for comments on the way the two of them have been interacting—how is anybody else involved in that?
*The links at "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" are no good, to put it brutally. Posting warning templates on JA's page certainly doesn't qualify as attempted dispute resolution. (Didn't I tell you once that it was frowned on?) Dispute resolution means a bona fide attempt at reaching out, and I think you may be too upset with JA to be the best person for it. Suggestion: try asking Jossi, who knows the ropes, to contact JA and try to talk with him about Anynobody's concerns. (Yes, I know there's little time for that... people do tend to run short of time at this point. The way it's looking now, practically any admin will delete the page after 48 hours, if JA requests it.) A technical point, also: the top 3 links under "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" don't work, and I think there are some more on the page that don't. You need html links for talkpage sections, and you need permanent links, that'll still point to the same section after the page itself is archived or whatever. And, as the instructions say, linking to a whole page isn't useful. I can easily format the links so they work right if you like (just ask), but you do need to have better dispute resolution to point to.
* I don't think Anynobody should put his reason for making the request on the talkpage, it should be on the main page. Under "Statement of the dispute", perhaps, or "Description". (It's a very nice explanation—it's good to see a RFC that's not full of acrimony and it's-all-his-fault —but it would be even better if it was a little shorter.)
*Finally, I'm sorry it's such a bureaucratic nightmare. You probably weren't expecting that. User RFC's are horrible timesinks. :-( ] | ] 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
===My apologies.===
*''Well... I'm actually a little frustrated that you asked my advice and then ignored it.'' - Please understand that I had started to add to the RFC, upon request from ], ''before'' I had seen your suggestions, so I did '''not''' "ignore" your suggestions, it was just too late. At any rate, I will try to implement some of your suggestions now. Please bear with me, as you are correct - I am unfamiliar with this process. If you feel you can adjust the page, be my guest. ] 00:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
**I have notified ] as per your suggestion and asked for help. If you think you can fix some of the links on the RFC page, and/or fix it to be more appropriate, that would be most helpful. ] 01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
***Also, can an editor list/link at ] or is that an Admin's job? How is the proper way to do this? ] 01:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC).


all of which I was engaged in, at an intelligent & informed level, while Bon courage was just grinding their POV & reverting, & offering zero engagemnt.
:::"''Changing it into a userpage can be done any time as long as nobody has commented, after that it'll be too late.''" Nobody has commented, so I can still ] it to give you more time for dispute resolution. Shall I do that, or do you think you can have it done up right within the 48 hours? I won't do a technical fix of the links at this stage, as I think you need links to better places. Good that you pinged Jossi. Anybody can list the page, but if you do want the page userfied, it shouldn't be listed yet. ] | ] 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
::::I am not opposed to userfying the page, but ] started the RFC initially, I was just responding to his request that I add comments/evidence. If you or Anynobody wishes to do that - I have no objection - but I probably should not. ] 01:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
:::::Oh, I'd better not, then, I assumed you two were in touch. But I've moved A's explanation from the talkpage to the project page. Please let him know that he should sign it, if you speak — no reason to make the reader dig around for who is bringing the RFC. ] | ] 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
::::::I wouldn't know any more than you. I've only "spoken" to him through Misplaced Pages talk pages. But I will let him know if I do. Again, as ] started the RFC, and not myself, as far as I am concerned your judgment is fine. ] 01:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC).


You have no grounds to enact such an onerous punishment.
I'm really sorry to cause so much trouble on both of your parts, rest assured I'm learning. Also please understand I am very thankful for your help. Maybe an RfC was the wrong road for me to take? Essentially I'd like other editors to take a look at my interaction with ]. I honestly don't know if I'm wrong or right, so my intention in listing myself was making it clear I'm willing to accept accountability for any errors I've made. ] 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
To be clear I'm happy to accept any suggestions. ] 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Thank you. ] (]) 19:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:Better than an RfC, that as Bishonen put it are "horrible timesinks" (an opinion that I also share), would you consider informal mediation between you and Justanother? Sometimes having such a third-party assisting can really help in disputes such as this. ] <small>]</small> 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


:Oh, I see. There's a whole load of material on the internet about you abusing your admin powers, and blocking people based on "non-existant personal attacks" - precisely as you have done to me, so I guess I am wasting my time appealing to reason with you?
To be honest I did consider mediation at first, but personally I'd like to hear from several editors. If I understand what
:If you care at all about 'accuracy' on the Misplaced Pages, you've allowed the other party to turn the lede into nonsensical rubbish, absolutely contrary to facts.
] is proposing, it would be to move the page as is to a subpage under my userpage. Once it gets a few comments, then move it back to the RfC? If that's what the proposal is I have no objections. ] 06:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
:They were, precisely I stated, just gaming the system to gain control over the topic. ] (]) 19:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::No, not "once it gets a few comments". It won't get comments while it's in your userspace, that's the whole point. It won't ''start'' until it's moved back to a live RFC, and, on my reading of the always-vexed RFC rules, you would be able to restart the clock for those 48 hours when it was moved back. What you need the time for is dispute resolution. The rule is that there must be real attempts, by two people, to resolve differences with JA, or the RFC gets deleted. It doesn't have to be formal mediation, informal is fine, but it must be a real discussion—not scolding JA with warning templates and such. Of course the hope is that the mediation will be enough in itself, and the RFC become superfluous—compare Jossi's comment here. But if it isn't enough, it's in any case a ''prerequsite'' for the RFC. OK, I've gone ahead and moved the page into your userspace as ]. ] | ] 11:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
::You think neither "a pattern of wasting other people's time and energy for them" nor "a pattern of contention & mendacious interactions with others" nor "I am just the latest victim that they think they can pick on" are attacks? What does '''' mean in your opinion? Or ''''? I disagree that a block from two pages, out of the whole of Misplaced Pages, is a particularly onerous sanction for the amount of disruption and ] you've been doing. But you can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing <nowiki>{{unblock|your reason here}}</nowiki> on your talkpage. ] &#124; ] 20:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC).
:::Of course they are not attacks. Look at Bon courage's talk page for evidence. They're just a statement of facts. For a previous victim of Psychology guy and them, see
:::Same players, same game. Neither providing citations, neither have any knowledge of the topic they are controlling.
:::And if what I wrote was an attack, then why isn't this an outright threat?
:::"''It won't work, and if you keep it up you will probably be removed from the Project, which likes to protect itself from this unwelcome crap. Bon courage (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2024''"
:::They threatened this user, then they started making an identical threats to me, gaming the system to control the page.
:::Look at my edits, and what am I doing? I am asking them for citations they can't or won't provide.
:::I've read the rules and policies and are they clear, e.g. NPOV, no citations equal removal, etc.
:::I am following the rules, they are not, and you are rewarding them. ]
:::(]) 22:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::If you really think so, {{u|Not a similar account name}}, why don't you request unblock, which I have several times explained how to do? Or you could complain about my admin abuse at the ] noticeboard. Don't forget to mention the {{tq|'whole load of material on the internet about me abusing my admin powers and blocking people based on "non-existant personal attacks"'}}. ] &#124; ] 23:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC).
:::::@] or even ] ] ] 09:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::@] There's a whole lot of stuff on the Internet accusing good Admins from people whining about their blocks, including me. All nonsense. ] ] 09:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Not a similar account name, it is incorrect to assume other editors have no knowledge in this topic area; it is also not true that sources were not provided to you (I provided several good ones on the talk-page). I have been reading books on fad diets and dietetics for over 20 years. Off-site I am in regular contact with food historians and have exchanged much research. You argued on the talk-page without providing any good ] that the macrobiotic diet is a traditional diet. It isn't and no food historian would claim that. As I explained in a message on your talk-page, the best thing to do is to wait until your block expires and not attack other editors or get aggressive like this. If you have other interests, edit another topic area. ] (]) 18:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


== Editing warring user ==
A quick question before this goes any further, did it really seem like I was posting warning templates and scolding him? ] 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
::No, IMO your attempts were ok, I was talking about Smee's. "''There must be real attempts, by *two people*, to resolve differences with JA''". See the top of the RFC template: "at least *two people* need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed". You're only one. ] | ] 07:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC).


{{no ping|Iimitlessyou}} has been edit warring and editing tendentiously on ], to exclude the prosecution arguments from the article.
Thank you for your reply, I'm sorry if that last question seemed blunt but what you were describing is exactly the kind of thing I meant to avoid. Considering that I didn't mean to create a situation where an RfC was necessary, for a little while I thought I was ''really'' messing up if you were describing my attempts the way I thought. I also don't want to give you the impression I don't consider your advice valuable, I just figured the worst that could happen was it got rejected. I know it may sound crazy, but I've been trying to do this without making things worse with ]. If I had to find somebody else to sign off besides ] he might think I was creating a cabal against him (I wish I could say I'm joking). ] 07:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


* is their first revert, removing a summary of the prosecutions argument.
:I am fine with whatever ] and ] are comfortable with. ] 07:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
* they reverted me a second time, calling me "completely biased" and a "pro prosecution editor" who is "adding debunked information"


At that point I placed a warning on their talk page (they blanked it) and I opened a dialogue (pinging them) on the article talk page which they ignored: They have completely ignored my request for discussion on the talk page: ]
] I guess your proposal confused me because ] and myself make two people trying to resolve these issues on ]'s talkpage. I found a couple of other editor's who's posts ] archived from his talk page regarding similar concerns. I re-posted it for consideration. If it fails (the RfC), then it fails. I really do appreciate your time on this, thanks :) ] 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


*They ignored that, and proceeded to revert me again and called me a biased "pro prosecution editor".
== ] ==
*They reverted me a forth time for .


I reverted them 3 times and attempted to discuss, they reverted me 4.
] Thank you Bishonen for moving my article and not just quick deleting it. I also appreciate your advice on the wording in my article that needs to be changed, you are the first who has made it clear to me what is wrong with it. As far as Veronica's story goes I will have verifiable published reference material from a reliable source.
:Very cool. Good luck. ] | ] 15:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).


I've tried to explain that the article is supposed to reflect the ], and this includes the prosecution case, but they seem to interpret this as "biased" against the menendez brothers who murdered their parents. Also note the editors heavy editing of the Netflix series article.
== Clue needed ==


] (]) 03:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I know that ] respects your opinion so could you please send him a clue re his removal of my POV tag. of my objecting. Thanks. --] 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
:And edit warring over it. ps Please see ] and ] for a different perspective on Anynobody, i.e. the view from the trenches. Thanks. --] 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
::And finally the of PA. Smee is back and true to form. --] 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


:Note I've taken this to the ] where evidence they fabricated quotes is posted. ] (]) 11:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
== Scared. ==
*I am quite frankly getting scared for my personal safety due to ]'s personal attacks in edit summaries and elsewhere. , . There is a reason for the language text in ] that says comment on '''content''' ''not'' '''contributors'''. I am uncomfortable and not well with this, to say the least. ] 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
**OH MY GAWD. What a drama queen! Can someone '''please please please''' send him a clue! --] 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
***I'm sorry this conflict is getting to you, Smee. I have to agree with Friday and Justanother that there's no external reason for you to be scared, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. That's not what it's supposed to be like to edit here! I hope you'll find it in you to walk away from the most stressful pages for a few days and decompress by editing uncontroversial stuff. When people do that, they're often surpried and relieved to find that other people do pick up the slack. That the page does survive their absence. Or so ALoan tells me. ALoan, back me up here? ] | ] 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
****Thank you for the support. ] 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
*****And Smee, while I figured the "Scared" was all BS for effect, I do realize that I could have been wrong and you might actually be getting that upset and really be feeling fear. Just know, Smee, that I come in peace! Mean you no harm. Would certainly buy you a cuppa coffee if we were to meet. So no worries, man. --] 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
******That is hard to believe, but I will try. Suffice it to say that that situation would be unlikely to occur. ] 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
*******Smee, I am a total sweetheart! You would love me. --] 03:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
********We're done here. ''while I figured the "Scared" was all BS for effect'' does not go very far towards acknowledging that my feelings are real. It invalidates your following statements. But thanks for the effort. Just try to act like a total sweetheart here on Misplaced Pages, like you would offline, and we should get along better. ] 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
*********I said that to explain why I called you a "drama queen" instead of making any effort to acknowledge your feelings and try to assuage your fears. Bishonen's reply highlighted my failing so I tried to repair it. Or at least repair the part where you say that you felt fear for your safety in the real world. As far as your "safety" here, I offered you an olive branch twice and you spit at me. That said, I have decided to give my sarcasm a rest but you can still expect me to continue to object most strenuously to any abusive editing on your part. --] 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
**********I am glad that you say that you will finally try to give your sarcasm a rest. I am sure that will be appreciated by all. ] 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
***********Maybe. --] 03:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, a bit late for backing up, but yes: if you are doing a job that needs doing, then I find that someone will step in and do it if you stop doing it. -- ] ] 10:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC) ::Sorry, {{u|Zenomonoz}}, I had a go at it, but I'm afraid I just don't have to bandwidth to research all that at the moment. Even the first revert diff you give (while Iimitlessyou's edit summary certainly makes a bad impression) records so many changes, and so many sources, that I found it pretty unmanageable. ] &#124; ] 19:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC).
:::No worries, it's handled. Feel free to blank my discussion here. ] (]) 20:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)


== WMF, Editor Privacy, Courts, and India ==
== ] ==


Hi Bish,
This image was released under the ]. I'm not aware that such a release can be revoked. Is there a reason why it was deleted? -] · ] · 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
:I didn't realize it was problematic, sorry. In view of what I've just read on the article talk, and what people told me on IRC, I've undeleted. ] | ] 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
::Thanks. -] · ] · 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Have you been following the ANI saga? If not, you can read a summary at ].
== Clue-o-gram needed ==
]
]
Would you mind helping ] out with a clue? I am including a stamp because I figured that you probably needed one and that is why you were not able to clue Smee in for me earlier. Anyway, now Anynobody is impugning ] as "representing" me and being "out of line". . I feel bad because Mr Darcy is on wiki-break and he was just trying to help me with a very rude post, ]. Thanks. --] 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
:From my archive ''"You appear to experience some kind of Incredible Hulk persona when you really start to melt down (I was gonna say Jekyl/Hyde but the Hulk sounds less like an insult considering many consider him to be a superhero whereas the former is considered a monster)." --Anynobody'' --] 05:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


So, the latest update in the case involves the Court ] until Misplaced Pages deletes the page on the case, created by {{U|Valereee}}, a week ago! More importantly, in the same hearing, WMF's lawyer to provide the details of the unknown "authors" who have/had edited the page on ANI, to the Court in a "sealed cover".
Seriously ] I can tell you are really angry, but in this case you took things a bit too far when you had ] chastise ] for simply giving me his opinion in a user talk page discussion. ] might have phrased his opinion differently if he knew you would be watching. Also I can't invite you, you asked me not to post on your talk page anymore (Posting notice of the RfC is an exception, you still deserve to know about action be taken against you). ] 09:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
:I am not angry, Anynobody; I am having a blast. When I get angry it is pretty obvious, as you well know (green skin, torn clothes, you know). --] 15:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Given the whimsical nature of Courts — not just in India —, there is always a probability of unsealing at a later date and hence, shouldn't such a step require making the broader community aware on how WMF plans to approach similar lawsuits in what is the most populous (and probably among the most litigatious) country in the world? Undoubtedly, WMF is not governed by the consensus of editors on how it approaches Courts and silence is strategic but perhaps some discussion will do good?
===Monstergram===
(Oh, come on.) To whom it concern: little Justanother total sweetheart. What's with bad press for ''monsters''? ROAAARRRR!!! ] | ] 07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
:Little people not understand green skin monsters. Green skin monsters '''not bad'''! Only big! --] 12:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


I want your opinions on the broader locus before I take this to one of the centralized discussion boards. Talk-page stalkers and watchers, feel free to join the discussion! ] (]) 12:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
== A flower... ==


:I'm not sure how to interpret that tweet. Maybe it means something, maybe not. Perhaps ''The Hindu'' will have commented on it by this time tomorrow. ] (]) 14:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
]]]
:A little more: ''"''" ] (]) 14:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:Aww! It's lovely. Thank you Zocky. And thank you very much for the picture popups, the search function, and the link completion. :-) ] | ] 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC).


== Administrator Elections: Discussion phase ==
], Bish! The day that originally signified the rebellion of the working women against the kitchen slavery and called for a refusal to accept the oppression and ]ry of the household work! In my Soviet and Post-Soviet years the holiday has already changed the meaning to a wussy combination of St Valentine's and Mother's day but I kind of like the original meaning. But you stay joyful! You hear me?. --]. <br> --Heheh, this poster is very cool. Young radical banner-carrying (yet aproned) woman putting out her hand to pull free the older woman — her mother? — who is being crushed under the weight of household paraphernalia! Is that a ] on top of her? ].<br>---Yes, it is a samovar all right. And the apron worn by the younger woman is perhaps due to her being a factory worker or something. Enjoy a pic on the similar theme below. The theme of "liberating" women from an old way of life was pretty big then. --] 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC) ]]
] (, ). --]]]


<div style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; padding:10px 15px">
What is all this about the 8th March being so special- is it someone's bithday? ] 23:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
<div style="padding: 0 0 0.5em; vertical-align: middle; font-size:130%"> '''] |''' <span style="font-size:85%">Discussion phase</span>
:] It is the birthday of ] that we all celebrate here. --] 23:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
</div>
<div style="display:flex; align-items:center;">
<div>
The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:
*October 22–24 - Discussion phase
*October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
*November 1–? - Scrutineering phase


During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a ]. You may discuss the candidates at ].
] all yours Irpen.<br><br>Thanks Giano! You know, this woman was picked to symbolize the left-wing alternative to the "bourgeois" feminism. --]]]
:::Beter still in 1971 on this day ] beat ] - truly amazing date! ] 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the ] software to vote, which uses a ]. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The ] are different from those at RFA.
Bish, in case you also like "sweet and cheezy", we are all human after all, here (]) is the image from the same country on a different theme. I am not allowed to post a fairuse image to your page :(, so only a link but see for a full context. Cheers, --] 02:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the ]. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no ] ("crat chats").
:Sinclair Lewis was the first American to win the Nobel Prize for literature. That's the connection to Sweden, as Lewis wrote ''Babbitt,'' and he said, when he accepted, "Our American professors like their authors like their literature: dead." Well, Lewis is now liked by professors, and poor, dumb Mr. Babbitt has become an adjective. Why, he's a big man at the local Elk's Club. An Elk is not to be confused with Anne Elk, who was a noted female professor whom the Soviets decided to celebrate on March 8th. ] 02:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
::*in that respect then poor dumb Mr Babbit was rather like poor ] ] 12:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
:Mrs. Babbitt was a pro with a chopping knife, but she would never have considered attacking her blobbery husband. Also, he was rather sexless, or befuddled about it, and lacked the malice necessary for getting an immigrant bride and then committing marital rape. He was a praire flower, not a ]. ] 12:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
:::*I meant in becoming an adjective, although I think Mrs Bobbit created a very - what did yu think I meant? ] 12:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Any questions or issues can be asked on the ]. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
<br clear="all">
</div>
<div>]</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;">
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please ].</div>
</div>
] (]) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrator_elections/Newsletter_list&oldid=1252510059 -->


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
== Quick favor? ==
*I tagged a bunch of images I had uploaded with <nowiki>{{db-author}}</nowiki>. Though it may not be the perfect db-speedy tag for this purpose, it works. If you have a chance, feel free to go through my latest contribs and delete those newly-tagged images. If not, I'm sure some other Admin will notice it. Thank you for your time. ] 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
**There aren't any in your recent contribs (unless we're talking about Commons, which isn't for me to meddle with), so I suppose JKelly took care of it? ] | ] 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
***Evidently somebody did, yes. No, the Commons stuff are all Free Images, and heavily explained with detailed licensing tags. ] 18:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC).


Hello,
== TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Linkimage}} ==


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> &nbsp; — ] <span class="plainlinksneverexpand">(]&#124;])</span> 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
== Feel strange . . . head . . . swimming . . . clothes . . . stretching ==


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
Need help. Users Smee and FoO breaking rules at ]. Posting threaded counter-point to my supporter is direct violation of the instruction statement at the top of the section and at the bottom of the RfC. My response area mine, not for non-supporter, that must go on talk page . . . must . . . hold . . . on . . . 3RR on it now cannot do more . . . . need help. --] 03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
:Users signing other subsection should not edit the the "Response" section, but that does not mean that they cannot comment below it. And it is highly inappropriate and conflict-of-interest for ] to be the one to "clerk" the page, and remove what he feels should not belong. That should instead fall to the mediators and ''outside'' parties involved in the RFC. ] 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
::Smee, you are clearly misreading the very clear instructions. The Response Section is the section after ''Statement of the dispute'' and before ''Outside view''. That section is for me and my supporters to make our statements without having to "defend" them in threaded discussions. Now take a look at the final bit where threaded responses to endorsements are specifically covered. '''Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.''' How clear does it have to be? --] 03:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
:::It was a signed comment directly related to an endorsement, which is allowed. But in any rate, it is not your job to police the RFC in the manner that you see fit for it to proceed. Not to mention it reflects poorly on your behaviour patterns. ] 04:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
::::"it reflects poorly on your behaviour patterns" that I want to play by the rules? And you are wrong; it is not allowed. Wanna bet a week's editing? --] 04:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Silence --] 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'll let others respond to this one. This bullbaiting is a waste of time. ] 05:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
::Well OK, I just made you an offer to "put your money where your mouth is". Nothing wrong with that. Guess you don't care to. --] 05:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
<br style="clear:both">
==You about?==
Hello Bishonen, got a quick favor to ask of you regarding a block you performed the other day. You about? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
:] got to it. You blocked user {{vandal|Headphonos}} for a week the other day. I uncovered that that account was a sockpuppet of the banned ] and JzG wasn't around so I was going to ask you to indef. block the sock. JzG has taken care of it, he also indef. blocked {{vandal|Arcticdawg}} another sockpuppet of the same user. Cheers. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
::Oh, ok, thanks, I was real busy but I was getting to it... sort of. ;-) ] | ] 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
==A favour==


Kind Regards,
I think it is time that was released into the wild - can you do it? I can't because of moving the history - but more importantly (you can all join in this) what does it have to be caled - I rather like the proper name "]" - Most people refer to it as the "]" we already have the translation favoured by the official site ] - I suppose that has to be the answer, a merge with that page but to my sunkissed ear it sounds clumsy and ugly. ] 10:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


]
I think it has to be "Prince's Palace of Monaco" - I have made the others redirects. ] 10:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
:I assume you don't want to cut and paste the article in your user page over the existing article, but would rather move it to keep the edit history intact? I have the ''potestas administratorum'' - would you like me to help? -- ] ] 11:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->
::Thanks ALoan, I think Bishonen is doing while we speak! ] 11:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks Sweatheart ] 11:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't believe it—people couldn't leave the talkpage alone for two minutes. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. This is gonna be messy, avert your eyes. ] | ] 11:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
::::Zilla fix! Talkpage successfully merged with Project:Paranormal! All edit now! ] | ] 11:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
:::::Gulp, little user prostates self at altar of zilla's fury, thinks might be reprehensible. user learn better wikiteque - quick! --] 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::/''Bishzilla stuff little user firmly in pocket to keep safe from Bishonen's puny wrath. Encouragingly:'' Climb Reichstag now, little Joopercoopers? ] | ] 21:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC).


== Administrator Elections: Voting phase ==
== A clue, a clue, my kingdom for a clue. ==


<div style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; padding:10px 15px">
. When people that have the clues do not share the clues then the clueless remain clueless. --] 15:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
<div style="padding: 0 0 0.5em; vertical-align: middle; font-size:130%"> '''] | <span style="font-size:85%">Voting phase</span>'''
</div>
<div style="display:flex; align-items:center;">
<div>
The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at ].


As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:
== Thanks . . . a lot ==
*October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
*November 1–? - Scrutineering phase


In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone ] will have a week to use the ] software to vote, which uses a ]. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The ] are different from those at RFA.
Thank you very much, Bishonen. Really! I am going to try to enjoy a well-earned wiki-break! --] 02:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the ]. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no ] ("crat chats").
== The deleted RfC ==


Any questions or issues can be asked on the ]. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
Hello Bishonen,
</div>
<div>]</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;">
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please ].</div>
</div>
] (]) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Robertsky@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrator_elections/Newsletter_list&oldid=1253182481 -->


== Kefas Brand ==
I see from your edit
you've removed this RfC. In your edit summary, you have stated that you see the parties' attempts to resolve the dispute were inadequate. However, the subject of this RfC has engaged in repeated egregiously uncivil and disruptive behavior, not only against ], but against any editor who does not share his beliefs or takes issue with his behavior. In fact, I had comments to add to the RfC, and to my surprise, the RfC was deleted. Please note I have seen efforts by ] to resolve their dispute, and to avoid a dispute in the first instance. But as your edit cites that you view previous efforts of the dispute resolution as being inadequate, can you (as an experienced editor, especially in these types of matters) please suggest ways in which this type of dispute can be better handled and resolved, or what other steps should have been taken prior to creating the now deleted RfC? I seek the benefit of your experience and hope you can show the way here. Kind regards, ] 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Hey Bishonen, Long time no see!, Hope you're well,
:02:36, 10 March 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) deleted "Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Justanother" (This is much older than 48 hours with the certification still woefully inadequate, as I warned the participants several days ago, and Justanother has requested deletion.) ] I understand you felt that it didn't meet the RfC requirements, however somebody else did and added it to the approved section. Moreover you didn't respond to my last post under the RfC discussion explaining that I was not the only signer, which is why it got approved I thought. You could have at least explained your view more clearly before deleting the RfC, either in the request itself or the RfC talk page.. I can see by your talk page history that you and ] are friends, and I suspect you may have let your feelings get in the way on this issue. I'm asking you to undelete the RfC, as there were other editors who have yet to comment. There certainly must be some way to escalate this matter above you, and must point out that if you take no further action I will research and pursue them. ] 04:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I could have explained my view more clearly? Gosh. Well, if you say so. I did my best. Certainly there are ways of seeking review of administrative actions, and I encourage you to pursue them. The formal way is to open an RFC on me. A simpler, more informal way is to post on ]. See the page instructions: "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here." ] | ] 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
::Hello Anynobody, I can appreciate why you may be understandably annoyed at the RfC being deleted. However, I cannot agree with your assessment that Bishonen and Justanother are operating in a conflict of interest; in fact, please note with regards to the BabyDweezil case. It would appear the RfC User Comment process is very time-consuming, which is one reason why editors and admins are reluctant to pursue them, except in clear cases of disputes which cannot be resolved any other way. My personal opinion of Justanother's editing behavior is that it is inappropriate, however in order to back a new RfC, I would also need to demonstrate that I had made adequate attempts to resolve my dispute with Justanother, which I cannot do, as Justanother appears to me to become overtly hostile as soon as the premises he cites as facts are called into question. I find it difficult to reach consensus when such behavior is exhibited. However, I do believe and have observed that, to your credit, you have not only attempted to avoid disputes in the first place, you have also made considerable efforts to resolve them, despite Justanother's clearly uncivil and disruptive behavior, and the tag team games being played with an editor who has now been banned. It also appears to me that Justanother has a pattern of making comments to incite and provoke people, and initiate discussions in which his stated premises are inherently flawed; to cite one example of many: in the Barbara Schwarz article, he falsely claimed it was sourced mainly from postings to the Usenet and thus is not reliably sourced. I have read Bishonen's comments and other comments about the process and I hope Bishonen can suggest some ways to resolve the dispute. I do not personally believe Bishonen let feelings interfere with the RfC issue, and I believe you may agree that Bishonen may have had feelings to the contrary of those suggested after reading the exchange above with regards to the "section break and noticeboard disruption". Please review it, as it may change some of your opinions stated above. Kind regards, ] 09:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


So in July 2024 you protected ], ] has now been created and I didn't know whether I should CSD or AFD it as don't know what the content was before, Gut instinct says CSD but I've had CSDs declined before because "the content is different" so just thought I'd ask you first, Thanks, Warm Regards, –]<sup>]</sup> 16:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::How about instead of deleting, you could move it back to ]? ] 04:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
:The content is in fact different, ], so I guess AfD is the better fit; ] was very short and barebones, with a characteristic tabloid emphasis on the subject's romantic relationship and little other content. Lousy sourcing in both cases, though - seems to be all highly promotional interviews + press releases. BTW, Davey, might you have seen a new article for ] also turn up somewhere? The original articles for the brothers were closely connected, as you can see from my note at both AfD's. ] &#124; ] 18:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC).
::::What, again? Sorry, no, that's not the way it's done. See the RFC instructions: "If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted." Not "will be moved to the userspace". Also, not "may" be deleted: ''will'' be deleted. ] | ] 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
::Ah okay and nope not seen that yet, I came across this via Simple Misplaced Pages ( and tried moving the article here to Kefas and then found out it was protected etc
:::I think it's been totally deleted, so it needs to be started from scratch - if it's appropriate to deal with the issue in this way. ] 09:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
::I'm guessing they've given up with here and will try Simple instead –]<sup>]</sup> 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Can I suggest, Orsini? I'm afraid you've caught me at a bad time for it. I did suggest, as you saw at the top of this page, under the heading "Minor formatting", where I did my very best to babysit this RFC to one that would ''not'' have to be deleted. Anynobody had pursued reasonable dispute resolution, Smee had not. Note that according to the rules, dispute resolution must be done by two editors, and must be ''seen to have been done'', in the RFC itself, in the form of diffs, under the heading "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". I tried to explain how vital this was, and repeatedly warned Smee and Anynobody about the 48-hour rule. First I tried to get Anynobody to keep it in his userspace, to give time for the matter to be taken care of; indeed at one point I boldly moved it there myself; he would have none of it. I explained to Smee what was wrong with the diffs he presented as dispute resolution — I quote myself:


== A barnstar for you! ==
:::::''The links at "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" are no good, to put it brutally. Posting warning templates on JA's page certainly doesn't qualify as attempted dispute resolution. (Didn't I tell you once that it was frowned on?) Dispute resolution means a bona fide attempt at reaching out, and I think you may be too upset with JA to be the best person for it. Suggestion: try asking Jossi, who knows the ropes, to contact JA and try to talk with him about Anynobody's concerns. (Yes, I know there's little time for that... people do tend to run short of time at this point. The way it's looking now, practically any admin will delete the page after 48 hours, if JA requests it.)''


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
::::The links that were there when I deleted the RFC were no better. So, you ask, can I suggest alternative ways of resolving the dispute? Yes: try ]. If anybody involved in this dispute wants further admin advice, I have to recommend you to ask someone else. I'm all talked out. ] | ] 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you! <b><span style= "font-family: Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#00C000"> ]] <sup>(])</sup></span></b> 20:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
|}
:Hey, what a fine star! Thank ''you''! ] &#124; ] 20:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC).
::Thank you for being so proactive at blocking that user IP. I appreciate your work. <b><span style= "font-family: Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#00C000"> ]] <sup>(])</sup></span></b> 20:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)


==My guess...==
:::::Talked out as you may now be, your efforts in spelling out things so concisely above are appreciated, and have not been wasted. Thank you for your reply. Best wishes, ] 13:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
: Is that a certain friend of ours does not in fact have years of experience of editing on behalf of other people, nor even of any kind of editing. If they had, they would by now know of the COI guideline, the sockpuppetry policy, etc etc, and would not have come along shouting out that they were flouting them. The stuff they posted was obviously AI generated, and was all about trying to make themself seem impressive, by being an experienced and professional editor, not some newby who doesn't know what they are doing. Anyway, it was pretty well obvious from the start that a block would almost certainly be arriving sooner or later.
: Is all that so obvious that I might as well tell you that grass is green? Maybe, but I just felt like saying it anyway.
: Give my regards to 'zilla. ] (]) 23:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::Hi, ]. Cornered themselves, didn't they? They lied ] or they lied ], or both. And, as you say, the rotting LLM smell is unmistakable in both texts. Anyway, I've asked {{u|Girth Summit}}, on whose page I found them, for a CU; that may bring further clarity. ] &#124; ] 00:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC).
::: Aah, "James". Very rarely I still get someone calling me that, and it seems really strange. Considering all the years when I used that pseudonym, it's remarkable how completely disaccustomed to it I've become. ] (]) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I do know it's not even your real name! But in my book it's your Misplaced Pages name, you'll just have to grin and bear it. Or, well, I'll switch to "Jim" if you like. ] &#124; ] 10:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC).
:::::Welcome in pocket, little ]! ] ] ] 10:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC).
:::::: What do you mean "little"? I've never said on Misplaced Pages that I'm little, so if I am then that's a violation of ], and if I'm not then it's a lie. ] (]) 23:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::: Pint-size James! ] ] ] 02:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC).


:::It's an odd one. I tend to agree with JBW (Jimbo II perhaps?) that the creation of a userpage like that isn't something an experienced spammer would do. On the other hand, they were editing from a clean proxy of some sort, which suggests to me that they were taking steps to cover their steps, so perhaps aren't as clueless as that userpage might suggest. Some sort of experiment to see how we'd react? Someone just messing around? Anyway, nothing more to do as far as I can see. ]] 12:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
== Why Deletionism is the Only Valid View ==


== ''Scheisst'' ==
] sat there as vandalism (not vandalized, but vandalism) with clean up tags on it for a good, long time. I don't know ''why'' I didn't delete it and create a new article so as to obliterate the history, but I suppose it was so that I could make a point about how more junk needs deleting and starting over. A valid ''subject'' does not warrant leaving garbage in place. ] 13:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (Addendum: it's also at a position against Misplaced Pages naming conventions. It ''soooo'' should have been deleted when it was a dirty joke. Not now, of course.)
:Wikify! Cleanup! Replace deprecated template! Fix some spelling errors! Where would we be without the ]! By the time I got to the people who changed the whole example sketch to "I like pussy" or "I like cheeseburger", I had every sympathy. They sure didn't make it any worse. ] | ] 21:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
Yeah. It started as original essay with incorrect information, then got labelled a bunch, then got turned into "I like pussy," and that was "cleaned up" to "cheeseburgers." An analytical essay? Huh? Mine's not good, mind you, but I also don't think we especially ''need'' an article on what a character sketch is. A character sketch is a ... sketch ... of ... a character. ] 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Have you thought of plumping it up with a bit of Pope? Remember the characters of women? I often quote "Some women have no character at all" to myself, in my head, when I catch myself with my hand in the ] jar. :-) ] | ] 04:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
::That's true, although, I suppose, to be nice about it, the "character sketch" is probably more common and better known as the "memories of Local Person" in the newspaper and the "portrait of Grotesque" that creative writing classes assign, so it would be a little mean to put in Atticus or Sporus or any of the women who have no characters in the Epistle to a Lady. Now, for an article on character, it would be ''so'' in. ] 12:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh, and '''ewwwww!''' for any candy that is only candy with the proper chemical added. ] 13:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


''ist wie Scheisst macht''. ] (]) 14:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
==Greetings==
:Hmm. Deep Fried Dutch? ] &#124; ] 14:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC).
Sorry to disappear into the ozone last quarter. Life gets complicated! Thanks for your input on the deletion vote on my user page. I appreciate the support for our little creative effort, even though it went nowhere. Even though my time is limited, I did manage to do some archiving and ran my watchlist during the last week. Some important material was lost to vandalism, so I see that things have not really changed much. I will not be around much for the forseeable future as I will be in Idaho for the next couple of weeks. Best Wishes. ] 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


== NOTHERE user ==
:My thanks to you, and your friends, for a reply. In looking things over (I really was out of the wiki-loop), the revelations about ] has shaken things up here. I had a good opinion of him/her in our limited contact, and appreciated his/her contributions. I see that ], who I "talk" with regularly, seems to have taken some personal responsibility for the situation, as he had recommended Essjay for additional responsibilities. This is so very unfortunate for all sincere editors here -- and for the encyclopedia. How are the administrators dealing with the issue? Is there anyway we peons could help? Best........ ] 01:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
::We're all peons here, W. I have little idea what goes on in the higher echelons. As many people are fond of pointing out, with a triumph I never quite understood, ] a democracy. Bishzilla has the little arbcom in her pocket, but, heck, that's her, not me. As usual with the latest scandal, there was a furore ( and ), and then it died down. The big difference is that the outside world is a lot more interested (not in a good way) this time. :-( Let's see, what else. Oh, yes, Jimbo Wales has proposed a "verified credentials" scheme. If that means an enforced release of our real identities on the internets, I'm out of here, personally—I'm funny that way. But, perhaps strangely, I haven't followed the case closely. All the little scandals are going on as usual, and claiming (wasting) the usual too-much-time. ] | ] 02:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC).


Hi Bishonen, could you take a look at this user {{noping|Powerinhand}}. He is making nonconstructive, tendentious edits promoting religious, caste and regional supremacy - , . He also created which seems to be promoting religious supremacy tacitly, by including surnames which are not exclusive to Sikhs (Malhotra and Uppal) and claiming that they are Sikh in origin, even though the adoption of those names precede the creation of Sikhism.
==]==
I know you didn't mean to, but I think mistakently labeled InShaneee as blocking Worldtraveller's account in your evidence page. As you can see by the block log, InShaneee never blocked Worldtraveller directly, only indirectly when he was a IP on January 2 . I came to request you actually change the title of the section of your evidence page to "InShaneee's block of '''Worldtraveller'''', '''3''' January 2007" to "InShaneee's block of '''81.178.208.69''', '''2''' January 2007", because while the fact that it was Worldtraveller behind the IP, InShaneee never blocked Worldtraveller directly. Thanks! — ] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Oh, hi, Moe. Did I refer to the wrong block log? That wouldn't surprise me, but I can't find where I refer to a log for the 24-hour January block at all. If I did, can you tell me where, please? As for changing the heading, or referring to WT by his (varying) IP, no, I'd rather not. I call the user--the person--Worldtraveller throughout--it's not a mistake, but rather a mark of respect. I don't think it has any potential for misunderstanding, either, since I don't discuss the circumstances of InShaneee's block of the anonymous editor at all (if I had, I would have gone into the IP thing.) I have assumed WT himself and others will do that sufficiently, and also canvass the IP thing to the point of boredom and beyond--the arbcom doesn't have any realistic chance to miss it. I discuss the aftermath. (Same reasoning with A Link to the Past, btw--I don't address the reasons for the block, I assume others will). I don't want that heading changed. But thanks for bringing it up for consideration! I appreciate your scrupulousness in taking it to me, rather than changing it yourself. (P. S. Wrong date? Weird. Thanks.) ] | ] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
::Well, since it technically WT's IP and the section is accuratly describing everything else for the most part, I guess it doesn't hurt anything to say that it was in fact WT blocked instead of the IP. I just thought for the sake of accuracy it should be changed *shrug* no matter. Yeh, my scrupulousness is shocking too considering how many ] things I do without discussing it first :) Cheers! — ] 04:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


It seems pretty clear that they're NOTHERE. ] (]) 13:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
==] (eom)==


:To add, incomprehensible tangents on peoples' talk pages: , , . ] (]) 13:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
*Eom? Is that like "burp" or "yum" or "excuse me?" It really should be. ] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


::This is a new user, ]. (Well, putatively. Hard to believe a user who creates a category page and shows awareness of WP alphabet soup as in ], and other signs of experience, is really new, but even so.) Much better IMO if you first warn them and explain what the problem is. ] &#124; ] 13:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC).
:I hope you don't mind me butting in here, but I think you may have misread CBD's original comment. He was indeed defending you against Tony's ridiculous attack. (and, Geogre, if you really don't know, eom means "end of message"). -- ] <small>(])</small> 18:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Alright, will do. Thanks for the advice. ] (]) 14:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::And I always tell my students never to write "In conclusion" in their conclusions: the words stop, so I figure that's the conclusion. Putting in a TLA to announce that there will be no more words is a bit weird, and saying, "This is all I have to say to ''you'' (link) and that's ''all'' I intend to say (eom)" is a bit...oh, let's call it brusque. ] 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Blocked and tagged. They have a very idiosyncratic use of edit summaries, so you can report them ] when they pop up again.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::And I think you may have read it too superficially, so we're even. ] | ] 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
:::::Thanks @]. Will do. ] (]) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::My paraphrase of CBD's coment: "Boy Howdy it sure does look like them fellas are conspiring together in a nasty convoluted plot with the sole goal of getting Inshaneee in trouble for some reason, but the AGF policy says we have to pretend it's just a crazy coink-i-dink, yup." Very inspiring stuff. &mdash;] (]) 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Thank you very much, my little ]. Admittedly, it would have been more fun if they had answered my question on their page. ("My sockmaster is Truthfindervert, and yes, it's blocked, thanks for asking.") That never happens with my "Whose sock are you?" posts, but I won't give up hope that some day it will. ] &#124; ] 20:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC).
::::You go from strength to strength, dear boy. ] | ] 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC).


== The Admin's Barnstar ==
:Now wait a minute. First, about "eom". It's an "email"-ism, sort of like the old radio-speak where when one person is done talking they say "over" and people take turns talking. When one is done, they say "over and out". In the radio world this was because the communication channel was half duplex and both folks couldn't talk at once. In email, it's been adopted as a courtesy to indicate a subject only message is not a mistake. This was only a poke to turn Bishonen's "you have new messages" indicator on. "Brusque" only if you don't understand the context. In context, it's meant to be courteous. I'm not CBD, and haven't interacted with him a lot, but my assumption is he meant this as a courtesy, not to be brusque.


{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
:Second, about CBD's original comment. I think Bunchofgrapes's paraphrase is nowhere near accurate. I'm not sure you've noticed, but I am one of the folks who objected to his block of WT. I'm on your side in this. But this doesn't mean everything CBD says is evil. My paraphrase would be "Hey, Tony, your interpretation of this requires a bizarre convoluted nasty plot that no reasonable person would imagine could possibly be the case." His phrasing was a little oblique (and he's later apologized about this as well), but IMO the basic message was supportive. There may indeed be more history here than I'm seeing, but this is how I'm interpreting this exchange. -- ] <small>(])</small> 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ]
:::I hope it didn't look like anybody here was being brusque to you, in any case. I appreciate your taking the trouble to post. ] | ] 02:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
|rowspan="2" |
:: I think it's sort of cool that we have someone who, when presented with a clear choice, will reliably choose to defend the ''greater'' of two evils. If nothing else, he's a handy moral barometer to have around, in the sense of a compass that always points South. ] 02:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Admin's Barnstar'''
:::/''Bishzilla laughs majestically, whole page shakes and rumbles.'' Little Nandesuka be first to enjoy Bishzilla new SUPER POWER SIG! See how cool: ] ] 03:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
|-
:{{User:Netscott/s1.js}} bows down to Bishzilla's impressive signature. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 04:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | ] :) - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 22:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
|}


:I followed a link from the Arbcom case here and noticed this discussion. The link and 'eom' thing is my standard way of handling comments on my talk page... I respond there and post a link so that the person is notified of the response, but the discussion is not split between two pages. The 'eom' is to clarify that it is not an error that no further message is included below the title... which used to be an extremely common usage, but is apparently a bit dated. Sorry if it was unclear, perhaps I should link the 'eom' to ].
:On the other bit, I had already explained a few times that I was trying to underline how outlandish Tony's accusation was. If you choose not to accept that then there seems little I can do about it.
:Finally, thank you Rick - for demonstrating the sort of character and true meaning of AGF, even towards those you disagree with, which all users should aspire to. --] 22:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


* Did 'shonen do something useful for once? ]&thinsp;] 06:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC).
==Courtesy link==
Bishonen, you might want to look at this, since it appears that once of your posts to AN/I was wiped. ] (]) 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:Looks like I was the last to know what damage I had done :-) ] (]) 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


== your help is needed == == ] ==


Look familiar? ] (]) 19:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Hey Bish, I'm not sure if you got my reply for the e-mail. So anyway long story short, going back to several other similar cases of block-evasion/ban-evasion such as ], ], etc, it is pretty apparent that there isn't a great distinction between an indef. block and community ban. Obviously, circumventing a ban and then getting rewarded for it just seems illogical. Seriously, this is a joke. But anyway, worst case scentario I guess is to go straight to arbCom and get them to define an actual distinction between block and ban. Oh and btw did Crum e-mail youb back? Your thoughts on this?--] 10:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:I know. Yes, he replied, it's me that's been real busy, sorry. But I saw the lates post on your page... it's a relief. ] | ] 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
::Thanks Bishy. On a related note, do you think it's necessary to protect his talkpage too? Given that there are some crazy wikilawyering and that unblock requests have been turned down more than 4 times in his previous accounts combined.--] 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:::No, I don't. Protecting the talkpage of a blocked user is a very extreme action, it should only be done in cases of extreme and ongoing disruption. On a semi-related note, I in that weird half-archived thread on ANI, don't know if you saw it? ] | ] 23:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
::::Yup I just did. Thank you :)--] 23:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


:]. In that case, would you mind moving the now present article to the salted title? My quick overview of the sources shows that it is probably the COMMONNAME. Not that I have any skin in the game, is what brought this to my attention in the NPP queue. Kindly, ] (]) 21:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
== The gargle has worked ==
::Thanks, ]. Yes, I will. The new article is not the same as the old one, which means I don't want to prevent it from being created. I'm just now typing up an explanation to the creator, who of course only used the (unnecessary) disambiguator because they were unable to create the straightforward title ]. (It would have been better to simply ask me, but these things happen with new users.) And, considering the various maneouvres to get the subject into Misplaced Pages (compare higher up on my page), I will definitely ask them about COI also. ] &#124; ] 22:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC).
:::Hello @] I had come to message you about this subject and the issues relvoving around his article. I have not been long on Misplaced Pages and do not know much for I am still learning how to use Misplaced Pages. So I do not wanted to seek your permission and know is it okay to contact the subject via social media and consult about the ongoing. Because if these are paid promotions like stated I’m just wondering why a 23 year old will adamantly pay and pay and pay just to get on Misplaced Pages. On the other hand it could be true as stated by many editors but also could be wrong. On the hand again I believe most concerns raised could be based off of feelings and emotions by various editors. So kindly I’d like to know is it okay. I’m seeking your permission being you have had encounters with that subject previously. my English May not be so good for im not from an English speaking country but I am learning And Misplaced Pages is playing a great contribution so you could pardon my grama or tense. Thanks ] (]) 11:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::No, {{u|Idrisskunle}}, I don't advise you to contact the subject on social media to tell them their biography is up for deletion. Even if your intentions are good, it would surely result in ] — perhaps the subject's fans, perhaps the subject himself — coming here and opining at the Article for deletion discussion. AfD discussions, if they are going to be fair, must be conducted by actual wikipedia editors, not by people drawn here via social media. Compare also . Thank you. ] &#124; ] 12:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC).
::::: @] thanks, I have understood that that’s why I wanted to inquire from you before anything I’m greatful for your response. According to my analysis I found the articles more of interviews where by if one is interviewed they’d answer the question as it is. However that would appear promotional but for this case I look at exactly what the subject is promoting and found not. Also the sources are reliable being they are not blogs but mainstream news papers from Uganda which I think answers the question of not notable sources. Also other references mention the subjects works. Personally I don’t know the criteria considered by Misplaced Pages to be worthy but I find no problem with the article and the references. Probably there is poor sourcing yes whereby I think being a new article it would have been granted more time to be enriched with more sources. That is what I think. But also I am Learning a lot from this specific article being I am forcused on becoming a better editor and contributor on Misplaced Pages so any guidance I totally welcome it.
:::::once again thanks for your response im greatful. ] (]) 12:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)


== Ah well ==
a blessed miracle - he has found his voice. Let's hope he loses it again soon for all the good it does wiki-kind! ] 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:Adm... admonish..? Oh, piss. ] | ] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC).


I tried.
== FA FAQ ==


Thank you for your swift action. 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 00:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. You dropped out of the discussion after the first night re changes to WIAFA. I wrote up ] because the idea of an FAQ for FAs met with some approval later. Any comments welcome. Obviously, we need to be very careful about launching new wording for FAs, but I think there are some sound ideas written down here, that need to be written down. ] 22:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:Not much you can do with a pure troll, ]. And note the username also! Didn't exactly fit the supposed opinions, did it? ] &#124; ] 00:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC).
::Not much at all. Since I am not an admin I use militant kindness to allow them to find and use up the rope. It gives full evidence to those who can take action, and prevent harm. 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 00:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)


== Thanks! == == Block evading ==


The IP that you banned for vandalism across many demographics pages in Latin America is back to making the same changes on another IP address ] ] (]) 12:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I simply hadn't read the talk page since you posted that - rather busy at work. Yes, it is helpful. ] (]:]) 17:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'll look for more, then. ] | ] 17:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC).


:] seems to be related to the ip ] (]) 12:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
==]==
:Blocked both. Thank you. ] &#124; ] 13:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC).
Bishonen, given your prior participation in discussions relative to this user, you should be aware of ]. Cheers. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 17:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks, Scott, I saw it, actually. I haven't decided whether to comment, but I've asked them to move the proposal. It should go on ]. ] | ] 17:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC). :PS, please take any further information to ANI, , rather than to my page. ] &#124; ] 13:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC).
::I understand your reservations. If the IP is indeed HE then of course such disruption is getting a bit out of hand and makes me hesitant as well. Good on you for pointing out ] as well. Thanks for the response. See you. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


== Email ==
:I've taken the liberty of indef-blocking ] - His excellency has indeed gone too far, even after the ArbCom decision. These repeated cases of vitriolic harassment are intolerable. A clear consensus has also emerged at the CN discussion. ] 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


{{You've got mail}} ] (]) 07:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
== A favor ==


== Violation of 3RR in spite of being aware of ] ==
Hi. I know that ] respects your opinion so I am asking if you would be interested in helping out with my dispute with Smee over what I consider his ]. I have sincerely tried to get him to stop but this is ongoing and just cropped up again. I would like to get a 3rd party involved, not as a precursor to some time-wasting User RfC, but to genuinely handle this dispute. Here is the latest:
#Once upon a time there was a small article about a small anti-Scientology propaganda piece called ]. It looked like not too long ago. I had been editing in the article almost since its creation. Smee has been there a while too, we met there in fact and Smee gave me a Barnstar for being nice to him (that is because I am nice, at least until it is proven that the intention to be nice is most definitely not shared).
#Smee made a series of edits to give what I consider undue prominence to the dedication in what I consider an effort to make the article itself into an anti-Scientology propaganda piece. and then with a screenshot . There are other similar efforts by Smee at what I consider propagandizing both in that article and in others but I am not addressing Smee's POV-pushing here, I am addressing his ] in pursuit of it.
#Ten minutes '''after''' a topic in talk, I the undue prominence and replaced it with a mention of the dedication in the lead; a very fair compromise, I thought.
#One hour later, Smee me without discussion even though I had specifically invited discussion in talk. He claimed in that edit summary I lacked consensus when, in actual fact, his "dedicating the article" is what really lacked consensus. He claimed I failed to discuss when it was him that had failed to discuss. Smee continued his improper edit-warring () and only stopped because I a neutral 3rd party to weigh in. When the neutral party also objected (more as a "film person" I think than as someone sensitive to the use of this project as a propaganda medium but that speaks to the fact that propagandists violate simple standards of article creation that are evident even without considering POV issues), Smee self-reverted with a deprecating remark. Another editor with media experience came in and agreed on non-POV issues that Smee's edit is inappropriate for the article.
In my opinion, Smee's behavior in this incident is disrespectful and disruptive. Bishonen, I could show you a number of similar incidents but this one shows my problem just fine, I think. It really is a problem; not my POV, not me whining, etc. Smee makes inappropriate edits then edit wars over them rather then discuss and continues to edit war until a 3rd party or parties come in and back me up (and they always seem to back me up). I do not mind that Smee does not want to take my word when I say that one of his edits will not stand. That is his right. I do want him to stop edit-warring to reinsert the inappropriate POV edit until the issue is resolved. The disputed material should be removed to talk and discussed and remain removed until the issue is resolved, not reinserted repeatedly in some phony "compromise" (a term he likes to use as he reinserts). That is my '''desired outcome'''. His agreement to to so. Would you please help us? Thanks. --] 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
:Sorry, Justanother. I think in all honesty it's somebody else's turn to deal with youse guys. I'm off to a rest home for a while. Why not ask Jossi? He even offered to help mediate between you, didn't he? Braver man than me. ] | ] 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
::Understand completely and do not hold it in the least against you. I will "shop it around" a bit. Thanks and enjoy the jello - I hear the orange flavor is particularly good! Take care. --] 20:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi Bishonen, {{noping|CharlesWain}} has violated 3RR in the article on ] in spite of an article talk page discussion initiated by me, just after I posted some relevant messages on their user talk page! Would request you to take necessary action. Thanks & Regards. ] (]) 10:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
== Please respond ==


:They have not. You should also avoid edit warring. - ] (]) 10:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
to . --] 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
:Why did you use <nowiki>{{noping|}}</nowiki> template while complaining about me here? If 3 revert is considered as ] violation then you have done the same by making three reverts since your very first revert is itself reverting this edit. ] (]) 10:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:Responded. ] | ] 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
::Yes, CharlesWain has made three reverts AFAICS, ], as I think you yourself have also done. Consecutive edits count as one revert, and violating 3RR means making ''more'' than three reverts. You guys are both edit warring; please use the talkpage. And, Ekdalian, I have to agree that using the <nowiki>{{noping}}</nowiki> template here was not appropriate. ] &#124; ] 11:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC).
:::Noted. Thanks & Regards. ] (]) 11:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


== Hmmmm ==
You are not helping Gangsta any by letting him think he is right. Surely you know that if it goes to ArbCom he will almost certainly be sanctioned. You can save everyone a lot of trouble by getting him to back off now. --] 04:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


I don't know whether making a joke about ARB would make you laugh or cause an appearance by Bishzilla (rwoar).
:I'm sorry, but can you please explain to me how Bishonen is somehow responsible for this individual? ] 04:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think they're missing out on your obvious experience. ❤️ ] (]) 22:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well, I was disappointed and admittedly (in my vanity) surprised. Perhaps I was missled by ] into thinking it would be easy! :-) But I'm sure everybody acted in the best faith, so no jokes. ] &#124; ] 09:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC).


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
Bishonen is just about Gangsta's only friend at Misplaced Pages. If you look at the thread on AN/I, you will see that she angrily defended him when I mentioned the fake banner incident. Gangsta interpreted this to mean "you're the one who is stalking, disrupting, bullying, and POV pushing all over the place. Bishonen made that quite clear." I asked Bishonen to confirm or deny that this is really what she meant to say; she has not replied yet. I am surprised you are not aware of this. Have you read the entire thread? --] 04:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
:What is: "Given the concerns expressed at ]" supposed to mean, specifically? ] 04:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for your interest, El C. In the workshop for the RFAr on InShaneee, Tony Sidaway offered the "Proposed finding of fact" that Worldtraveller had stalked and personally attacked InShaneee, and that "statements by some experienced Wikipedians" had encouraged him to do so. The only link given by Tony for that encouragement was to a statement by me. Tony and Ideogram went on to discuss how my "bad advice" was something of an excuse for Worldtraveller (who protested indignantly at what he called "condescending nonsense"). I'm assuming that workshop thread was the concern Ideogram had in mind. I didn't reply to the Proposed finding. Tony had linked to , so there didn't seem much to add. Perhaps Ideogram was worried I might not have seen it, and prodded me on ANI and here on my page to get a dialogue going? I don't think that would be fruitful or constructive though. (I have some prior experience of attempting to dialogue with him.) El C, please don't encourage him to post here. Ideogram, please don't post here. ] | ] 11:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC).


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
:I understand your position and share your indignation. ] 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


</div>
== A present ==
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->


== just so you know... ==
] and orphaned them. I have rather neglected poor old Blenheim of late (it had even acquired an info box!) - so you can have them! ]]]
] 10:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)]]
<br style="clear:both" />
== Smee on ANI ==


Despite their 31 hr block Qalnor is continuing their attacks against Doug . ] (]) 21:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
] - your comments are welcome. Thanks --] 05:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
:: <small> sorry for repeating myself sorry for repeating myself ] (]) 22:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC) </small>
:I did revert their edit, but I'm not sure if this was the correct thing to do. ] (]) 22:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::And it looks like they reverted back to their version with the attack. ] (]) 22:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I know, thanks, ]. I have to go to bed; hopefully Yamla will deal with it if it recurs (it's gone at the moment). That page is too fluid for me altogether; I tried over and over to fix various formatting errors, only to be edit conflicted. I'm a slow little old lady. Good night. And now I'm being edit conflicted on my own page too. Come on, guys. ] &#124; ] 22:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC).
::::I've got it. --] (]) 22:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|I'm a slow little old lady.}} No one says that about you as far as you know. ] (]) 22:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)


== Do not revert war == == Past disagreements ==


We've had disagreements both here- and not too long ago. The latter in particular, because the user reported was initially believed to have no connection to the sock-master, but after my report which detailed significant new developments, was deemed as having a "possible indicator of sockpuppetry". The sockmaster had multiple socks who were almost unblocked and "let go" by admins, where I had to take drastic steps to ensure that didn't happen. Given these 2 disagreements barely a few months ago, I think you being an uninvolved administrator is tenous, at best. I hope we can resolve this here, because I do not wish to take a monstrously confusing SPI case to A/E and divert focus. ] (]) 11:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
--] 18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
:], I've done what I intend to do about that ]. I've no further comment. ] &#124; ] 11:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC).
:''One'' rv is a revert war now? How interesting. &mdash;] (]) 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
::One '']'' should be enough, I would think. People who want to see it or make it again and again are obviously having some sort of adverse pscyhopharmaceutical reaction. I mean, Ideogram ''must'' be talking about the movie, right? There's no context to what he says. Or is there a war at ], which is often misspelled as "donot." Donuts are for eating, and they make very poor implements of war. (I would rather not say more now. I have many dark theories about the evil genius that we need to get rid of. See me on secret.agent.irc.) ] 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


== I'm always coming to you for advice ==


The editor VaudevillianScientist is becoming increasingly upset that I and several other experienced editors in good standing support the deletion of "their" new article . That editor has bludgeoned the discussion (not a huge problem given that they feel highly invested), they have canvassed for like-minded opinions on and off enWP (see ), and things are getting increasingly out of hand and a bit too personal. I advised them to restrict their comments to content/topic, and to not comment about other editors, but they have unfortunately escalated to a bad-faith attempt to out me , in which I am referred to as "Leonid." That name almost certainly refers to ], who in January 2022 I was accused of being in a guffaw-inducing joe-job by one of ]'s many, many socks (see ). Needless to say I am not Schneider, and I invite any CU to determine that independently.


Being upset that one's article is at AfD is one thing, but attempting to out an "opponent" is something much more serious. I am however uncertain how best to proceed, especially with the AfD still active. Should I just proceed to ANI right now, wait for the AfD to end, or seek another remedy? Thanks in advance for anything you (or passing jaguars) suggest. ] (]) 19:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
== Image help? ==
: Note: they have just now replaced "Leonid" with my WP username. But the outing attempt was real, although false, and it remains in the article history. ] (]) 19:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::What a business. It's appropriate to block for outing, but I can't find any principle for ''how long'' such a block should be. Maybe indefinite? I've given them a month, but I'm just guessing. Any opinion, little talkpage stalkers? Meanwhile, I haven't revision deleted their post - would you like me to? My thinking is that a) it might encourage a Streisand effect, and b) since you repeat the name here, I suppose you're not that upset over it. Let me know if I'm wrong.


::Meanwhile, their canvassing is also a serious problem. But I'll leave the closing admin to deal with that. ] &#124; ] 22:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC).
Allo.
:::For the outing alone, assuming it is a first offense, a month is reasonable. My feelings on it are slightly mitigated by the fact that OP is clear that they've missed the mark and that is not who they are at all, otherwise this would be a matter for the OS team. Malicious outing to try and gain the upper hand in a content dispute is not something we should just look past, even if is is done ineptly.
<br/>So, I just picked an admin at random for some help with something pretty small.
:::While they are blocked is a good opportunity to discuss the other points like canvassing so they can better avoid further blocks in the future, or at least can't say they weren't advised about it. ] ] 22:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
<br/>(btw, you may want to tell bishzilla to be more carefully when handling editors. It took me a LONG time to de-flattenify myself after I got squashed!)
::::It's probably too late to do this now, but attempted outing should be treated the same as outing. Now we all know that JoJo's real name is ''not'' Leonid. – ] 23:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
<br/>Anyways, I noticed that the was a jpg, and there's a notice requesting that someone replace it with a svg or png image. I'm veeery new to svg, and have zero knowledge of how to upload images, do copyright stuff, yadda yadda yadda.
:::::Thanks, guys. I'll consider the canvassing (and the bludgeoning) after I've slept. I wish to lodge a complaint: there's a howling blizzard outside. Not sure I'll even be able to go out tomorrow. ] &#124; ] 23:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC).
<br/>So, anyways, I just used inkscape to essentially trace the original logo, also exported as a png, and uploaded both to my school account. Any chance you upload and/or , if they are suitable replacements? (And is just a link to a blown-up svg version, if that's necessary for anything)
:::I am less angry at the identity that was falsely assigned to me than the fact that the editor ''intentionally'' attempted to out me in the first place. It's a stark example of bad-faith editing. Regarding a potential revdel, although I would prefer that post to be removed I will certainly defer to your post-sleep/blizzard judgement (or to that of any passing admin), as I am sure you have more experience than me in these matters. ] (]) 00:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
<br/>This request also goes out to any of the many editors who tend to read this talk page. (except bishzilla. I don't want to be squished again. It messes with my hair.) ] 20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
:Well, I know how to upload, but am a bit fuzzy about image formats and their appropriateness, also whether the way you made yours is ok copyright-wise, so I hereby request some image whizz to do it. Wait, I'll have Bishzilla request it with her new power sig, so nobody has a chance of MISSING IT. ] | ] 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC). ::::In that case, I've revdel'd. ], do you wish to oversight? ] &#124; ] 03:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC).
:::::Done. – ] 14:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thanks. ] &#124; ] 14:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC).


== A barnstar for you! ==
::Zilla kindly request page visitor to help the little Bladestorm! ] '']'' ] 21:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC).


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
== Transcendental Meditation ==
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For dealing with a nasty case of racist, anti-semitic vandalism. ] ] ] 05:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
|}
*Oh, wow, thank you, ]. "Dealing with" sounds so masterful; I mainly messed it up. Relieved I got it right in the end. The credit goes to ]! ] &#124; ] 10:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC).
*:@] Well, in the end, you did your best, teamwork happened, and everything turned out well. Good job all around! {{smiley}} ] ] ] 19:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


== Your view on Mauryan Map ==
Can't help but notice, after being away for awhile, that all of Askolnick's criticism of TM has virtually disappeared from this page and what is left is pretty much a promotional piece for the practice. Most unfortunate, and not up to Wiki standards IMO ] 07:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


Hello, there is currently a discussion about the Maurya Empire map on the article, reputed users like Fowler&Fowler and Joshua Jonathan have been ignoring our sources and in my view, POV pushing, they have been coming up with excuses , which obviously violate Wiki guidelines on arguments. They have been doing disruptive edits, as of now, they have or tried to remove the Maurya Empire's maximum extent map (by Joshua Jonathan) and then Fowler followed up with "he did the right thing", we have provided dozen articles and books by reliable sources, they have been ignoring them and claiming our sources are not tur. Their map with holes is based on very vague sources. Don't mean to personal attack anyone, but your contributions will be appreciated. @] ] (]) 13:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
==GimmeBot==
:I'm afraid this is some ways above my paygrade. Too specialized for me. ] &#124; ] 13:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC).
Regarding yes and no. Most article talk pages have been GimmeBotified, but not all; the (temporary) instructions are hard to nail down during the transition because there are several different scenarios. The bot moves the facfailed nomination to an archive, closes and tags it, clears the redirect, leaving a link to the old nom on the cleared fac page, so that a subsequent nominator will find the old failedfac already linked on the new fac page (hence, "retain"). "Add" will go away once botification is finished, and retain will be accurate. While the bot work is underway, I've been watching each fac nom to make sure all the pieces are in the right place. I'm going to be traveling; if you want to tweak further to cover all the bases until the bot work is done, Gimmetrow can help. Eventually, the instructions will have to be rewritten, eliminating any mention of add, move or archive, as the bot will have done all of that in advance. ] (]) 12:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:I've noticed the same phenomenon in the progression of Microsoft Operating systems: the "easier to use" something gets, the harder it is to understand. &mdash;] (]) 14:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC) ::understandable, but do look out there for disruptive edits please. ] (]) 14:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


== GrownUpAndWise == == November music ==
{{User QAIbox
| image = Apple tree in field, detail, Ehrenbach.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
greetings from a trip -- ] (]) 17:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:Aw, ]. November doesn't look like that where I am — it's all darkness and sleet and melting snow from the recent howling blizzard. (''Defiantly:'') But I like it like that! We're Northerners, Bishzilla and I! ] &#124; ] 20:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC).
:: Where I live, it's also the exception. - I uploaded pics of a trip (to the warmth) that was a 10-day celebration of a 16 November event, but the day was also when a dear friend died. We sang ] at his funeral yesterday, and it was good. --] (]) 19:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


==You've got mail!==
I was just looking into reporting that account as a disruptive SPA after brutal post on BD's page but I see that you are already on top of it. --] 14:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
{{You've got mail|subject=|ts=04:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)}}
:Sure. I can do that kind of thing straight from the rest home, no problem. ] savagely with a shaking hand, ] converge on her in a ].] ] | ] 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
<span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 04:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::] arrives, quickly discovers where /bishonen has been hiding her ], and casually injects her with a powerful ] while marking her chart for ] tomorrow. Ratchet does a quick ] and departs to ] to other patients. /bishonen continues her careless slumber. At least until her runs out. Sweet dreams. --] 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:Replied and actioned. ] &#124; ] 09:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC).
:::Yeah yeah. History delete complete (I hope), check it out. I have e-mailed the page owner. ] 21:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
::::<s>Looks good, thanks.</s> Double plus good. --] 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


== Arbitration == == My topic ban ==


You have currently topic banned me from India related edits.
Traditionally one tries to resolve things outside of arbitration before bringing it there. My to talk to you about this was . I am still willing to talk about this. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 21:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:Ignored? You say the thing which is not. ] | ] 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
I still see no impasse in our discussion that warranted arbitration, I responded quickly to that. However it is done, and I will gladly deal with this matter in such a moderated environment. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


And reasons you have provided are "Orignal research" and "Removing templates"
== Any ideas gang: active discussion moved to bottom of page ==


1) removing the Afd template was a mistake as I was editing in mobile.
Guess whose use page it was? It is not finished, I do not vouch for it, as you all know I have loads of these pages on the go at the same time, some take months to finish. There are times when I would love access to check user! All suggestions welcome ] 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
:Reverted. ] | ] 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
::Thanks Sweatpea! I didn't know if we were allowed ot do thatas others had edited since- amazing no one noticed the categories were al lackinng their final ] - I must put my banner on it now. ] 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
:::There's a limit to how much crap we have to put up with. The IP obviously knows it's bad behaviour, too. Look at its contribs! Would a complete newbie know to go sniffing round userpages, and have such an idea? No. As you say, and as I mention in the revert edit summary, there's no knowing how correct your info is at this stage. The IP certainly can't know it. I checked the later edits, they were only corrections of stuff the IP had messed up, except for the addition of one category (which I put back). ] | ] 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
::::*Interesting I placed one of my beware tags this is unreliable and unfinished on it on the 17th January several days before the "Anon placed on 24th January in mainspace! So Anon knew exactly what he was doing! ] 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Where is Allston - I've never heard of it? ] 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
:Note that having Checkuser would not help; this is too old, I'm pretty sure. ] (]:]) 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks, Matt. Yes, I have informed myself, and it is in fact too old. Pity, that. I can't swallow this as being a a good-faith attempt to improve the mainspace — I think it's pure malice. ] | ] 02:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
:::The intentional pushing of a button, yes. And by someone who knows it. ] (]:]) 12:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
::::A random thought from the gallery: should ''the'' edits be deleted, as in essence they are a copyright violation as the edit by the IP doesn't attribute Giano as the author, as required by the ]? With Bramham Park, the only edits between the IP adding the info and Bish reverting it are minor fixes, and in essence they are all copyvios. Thoughts? Cheers, ''']''' 07:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC) <small>''retreats back into the shadows and rejoins other people who watch to see what article will be the next FA :)''</small>
:::::You mean I should delete all revisions after MortimerCat? That's a thought. I didn't think of the credit thing and the GFDL—I assumed Giano's work was in fact free to steal once he'd saved it anywhere at all on Misplaced Pages—I removed it only on the principle that it was unsourced and unreliable and the author had even ''said'' so. (I won't deny that I ''wanted'' to remove it, but the attribution angle didn't occur to me.) OK, I'll remove those suckers. I was lucky the case was so simple—I don't know what I would have done if somebody else had made substantial additions after the IP edit. Been petrified with indecision, probably. As for the next FA, I believe Giano has foresworn producing any more of those, after recent scarring experiences of ]. ] | ] 08:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


2) original research - I have done nothing as of original research on any article (that is currently active)
::::Thanks for all the support here! I didn't realise people watched my uses space so much - I shall have to watch some of the less than flattering things I write about some buildings there. I'm not bothered too much about credit - but I do like a little acknowledgement sometimes. Also I do like to check my spelling and dates etc before going into mainspace. I'm afraid, you will all have a very long wait though for the next FA - you have seen the last of those. I write only in my style, in the way I think is correct for an encyclopedia. It would be a waste of time FACing my pages as I am reliably informed via the FARC page that they would not pass today. I refuse to ref such well known facts as "''During the 17th century, many architects studying in Italy learned of Palladio's work''" - as I have been asked to do on FARC. Finally, this classic comment here referring to my writing - ""''In 1570 Palladio published his book I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura, inspiring architects across Europe." Inspired who? According to what researcher? Needs citation, otherwise is original research."'' made me realise that if I have to look up every obvious and accepted fact, then I would be unable to write an FA again anyway, as any spontaneity and freedom of expression in a page would be gone. They would become so dull no-one would ever bother to read to the end. While I am happy to ref a Prince of Monaco sleeping with his mother-in-law (because not a lot of people know that!) - and it makes a dull section on history page more interesting and fun - I am not about to become a "Master of the Obvious" referencing every well known fact just to please a few style and rule obsessive zealots . I feel wikipedia is so full of little stubs begging to be improved, and subjects on which nothing is written - we could all more profitably spend our time attending to these things, rather than attacking the better pages.


3) edit warring - @] has been removing mentions of Gupta Empire and Magadha from Gupta Empire article, just because HE thinks it's not accurate.
::::I know some other former FA writes such as Geogre and Bishonen share some of my views - which is a pity as they have produced some of the better and more intellectual FAs essential for a encyclopedia of any worth and value. I 100% believe references should be listed and I'm glad to see their are still some very good editors turning out first rate FAs but there is also a worrying amount of FAs on pop music and computer type things sourced entirely from the internet - not in my view a static medium. I would like to see more FAs sharing sources with not only the internet but also books with few pictures and 973 pages.] 09:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


He also vandalised a page I created "List of wars involving Magadha", he removed the classical Magadhan Polities section completely and added a "contradictory" tag (POV PUSHING)
:::::("V=IR? Do you have a citation to this so-called Ohm's Law? I see that you have a link, but you need to have a citation, and then this 'R=V/I' needs another citation. You can't expect us to accept this original research.") ] 10:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Sadly ] would probably have been banned from editing such pages, because of his insistance on own research and citing himself! ] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


He then warned me for vandalism and edit warring while he should be the one to be warned (for vandalising my page and gupta Empire).
I am interested in this. I think it's a really dirty thing to do. I ran checkuser on the IP at Bish's request, but it's too old. ] 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
::We are not talking about that anymore, as you very well know Raul! ] 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


4)bad faith - all I told is AirShip to actually read the book (he just read the title of the book and then said my argument is wrong, he should have been more cooperative). ] (]) 06:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I have been considering pushing an article of my own to FA level sometime in the next couple of months, and I have to say that what I have been reading about the FA reviewers demanding a footnote reference after every sentence is a serious deterrent to my wanting to do that. This page is probably not where I should be saying it, because I'm preaching to the choir here, but if our most motivated authors are choosing not to create featured content because of idiosyncrasies of the selection process, that is a serious problem. ] 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:Topic ban immediately violated . ] (]) 10:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well there is nowher else to say it, unless you want to be shouted down, we are clearly in a minority - so we teo choices write FAs to the standards of others, write mere ordinary pages to out own standards. I am choosing the latter. ] 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
::That topic box was started before my topic ban ] (]) 10:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What are you talking about? You definitely violated your tban right there, ]. Please read ] more carefully. Your ban is in force, and it applies to discussions or suggestions about the topic anywhere on Misplaced Pages, also including edit summaries '''and your own user and talk pages'''. Don't talk about India, Pakistan or Afghanistan anywhere on Misplaced Pages! The only exceptions are "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" and "appealing the ban". What you have written above, and also below my ban notice on your own page, addressing me, can be taken as appealing the ban, so that part is all right. Though there's no need to write the same things twice - let's keep it here, on my page. (I will answer the specific points you make later, I'm a little short of time.) But after you were banned, you immediately went back to older posts by Doug Weller and Garudam on your own page and started arguing with them. '''That is not allowed''', as it can't be called "appealing your ban", so don't do it any more. If somebody should come to your page and try to engage you in conversation involving India, Pakistan or Afghanistan, please simply tell them you can't discuss it because you're under a ban.
:::When I see you went to ] and started talking about Magadha and the Gupta Empire, I'm starting to wonder if you read ] at all, as I urged you to?? If you violate the ban again, you will be blocked. ] &#124; ] 10:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC).
::::I started that topic box before my topic ban, I will be more careful now on.
::::But please do clarify on Garudam and AirShip issue.
::::I don't think I did any thing Bad Faith or Original Research. Infact Garudam has been vandalising my page and disrupting gupta empire by his pov. ] (]) 10:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:*'''Vandalism/Disruptive edits'''
:- Garudam removed an entire section from my article without any consensus. ]]]
:-Garudam removed mentions of Magadha from Gupta Empire article. ]]</nowiki>
:-All i did was remove/revert these disruptive edits, but for some reason i am the one disrupting?
:*'''Bad Faith'''
:- ], no idea how this is bad faith.
:*'''Original Research'''
:-Magadhan Empire article wasnt created by me.
:- All my other articles were deleted for other reasons (unfinished or already covered somewhere else).
:- Even my current article ] is getting called 'original research'.
:@] my defence. ] (]) 10:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


Hi again, {{u|JingJongPascal}}. I've taken a fresh look at the "contradictory" template question, that you and Gurudam argued about , and also at your supposed assumption of bad faith in the . The template removal instance is really too complex to sanction you for, and, as Doug Weller has recently posted on your page, his belief that you'd assumed bad faith was at least partly based on a misunderstanding. These two things weren't very big deals to begin with, either, and I wish I had left them out. I've crossed them out on your page and in the log.
:What they are doing, so far as I can see, is to produce their usual excellent articles, but they are just not bothering to ask for the shiny star to be affixed to them. But ] shows how it should be. -- ] ] 16:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


As for edit warring, which you mention, I don't think that was even in question in my T-ban notice - I don't see it there.
And what are you going to expect other people (who aren't experts in ]) to do when someone else edits your article, and follows your style of not citing enough? You don't ] them, you know. Say you get three edits adding or changing information that seem reasonably likely; two are good, one is bad. How do you expect someone not yourself to know which of the three to revert and which to keep, if you don't give them sources to compare to? This is not just a hypothetical case, I just blocked an editor who had fun doing exactly that, inserting minor inaccuracies in uncited articles. See ] - he was doing this since June 2006. If he had done this to something like ], which is cited up the wazoo, his edits would be easily checked against reliable sources. As is, he got away with it for months. Do you really want him to be able to do that to your featured articles? --] <sup>]</sup> 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:Attribution really helps an article, it is not just policy but a good idea. It allows editors who do not know the subject to competently judge the merits of the contributions of others. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:: (ed conf) For an example, a sentence in ] implies strongly that ] was a recommended drink! Is that vandalism? Don't know - maybe it is vandalism, maybe it is a poor turn of phrase, maybe it is even accurate. How is a humble mouse like myself supposed to know where to go to check the veracity of such a statement? Am I just supposed to take the article's word for it? Or am I supposed to read all 6 books mentioned in the references, with no indication of where to look, just in case one of them actually says that? --] <sup>]</sup> 16:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, you could have tried to simply let your gaze descend to the closest footnote following that statement and checked those pages out. The footnote refers to 4 pages from Scully. Is it really that baffling that two paragraphs and a quote can be covered by such a modest reading assignment?
:::] <sup>]</sup> 00:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::::And since Bish's talkpage seems to be a more relevant place than the ] to voice concerns about an article issue, here's the passage causing such consternation: "For most medieval Europeans, it was a humble brew compared with common southern drinks and cooking ingredients, such as wine or olive oil."
::::] <sup>]</sup> 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::*Of course obscure facts like that should be referenced, no one (certainly not me) is arguing otherwise - It is well known facts that can easily be confirmed if not already known and taken for granted that do not need to be cited. Anyway you can have FAs anyway you like them, because the rules no longer apply to me, I am free of FAs and over zealous rules invented often by people who have no need to apply them to their own work - I am talking about proper FAs not articles on "here today gone tomorrow" movie stars and pop songs written using 101 "here today gone tomorrow" internet sites each themselves of dubious quality, ] 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


The other points, however — disruptive editing, canvassing discussions, original research, and battleground editing — were big deals, and remain so. Removing the AfD template from an article you had created yourself is a classically bad thing, but not as weighty, as it was one event, and you blame your mobile for it. (Not sure how that works, but never mind.)
:Oh my, what if someone who's not an expert edits the article? Then it won't be reliable? What if they edit and don't give footnotes? Those arguments are, ''at their best,'' an argument against Misplaced Pages. After all, what do we do when someone edits the article on Bob Roberts? What do we do when someone edits the article on George W. Bush? Do we have to have footnotes to know the difference? Hey, what if someone ''edits the footnotes!'' What if "someone" ''inserts a bogus reference?'' Do you think it's even remotely possible to turn out a heavily footnoted article where the footnotes refer to fictitious books? This argument is against an encyclopedia anyone can edit. I also love the implication that someone is advocating not footnoting enough. In fact, I advocate ''appropriate'' references. My version of appropriate means some education in the reader. My version means no footnotes, all parentheticals. Your arguments are really, really off the mark and weak. ] 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
::I would say anon's argument is very much in line with the spirit of Misplaced Pages, and are rather compelling. Attribution is important. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::We are going arownd in ever increasing circles, so I am going away, this is becoming boring, I'll come back when it gets interesting again. ] 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
::: <small>Apologies for not keeping Giano properly amused.</small> I can tell you what to do when someone adds a dubious claim to a well cited article. Check their edits against the citation. If they don't agree, the claim is wrong. That works equally well if the claim is bogus or if the source is. That way we don't have to worry whether the editor has a doctorate in theology or is merely diligent at using Google; we don't care if they're an expert, merely if their sources are. If they don't give a citation, that stands out as something that should be cited, tagged, or removed. Misplaced Pages is not reliable in and of itself, specifically because anonymous mice ''can'' edit - and don't think I'm saying that's a bad thing, that's the reason I am allowed to be here, after all. However, it does mean that proper attribution is the only thing we have that can give articles that reliability. That doesn't mean citing every sentence, but it does mean that when someone doubts a fact, it is only assuming good faith to believe that doubt, and be able to reference that fact. Frankly, assuming that every educated reader already knows that a 1570 book inspired architects across Europe is common knowledge is attributing quite a lot to common knowledge. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
::::That is not the meaning of "common knowledge" on Misplaced Pages. Please see . ] | ] 21:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
::I suppose I have more faith in the power of a college degree, but knowing that Palladianism came from Palladio only required a single Art History class for me. I would have known Palladianism anyway, a bit after my sophomore year, when I hit it in a History of England class. I would have learned it as a senior, if I hadn't learned it as a sophomore or a junion, when I took a class in Europe Between the Wars. I have "learned" that fact a dozen times in college. We do ''not'' cite everything. We ''do'' rely on good faith. Remember that ] refers to ''articles,'' not taggers or blocks or other things. In fact, Misplaced Pages was the gamble built on the assumption that more people wanted correct information than wanted to vandalize, and we are extremely susceptible to dishonest editors. We always will be. That's the nature of the game. If people want to read undergraduate research papers, they can, but that's not the standard of any encyclopedia. I find them unspeakably insulting. "The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is named after Heizenberg (note)" makes me want to slap someone. How stupid do they think I am? How stupid do they think readers are in general? How stupid are they that they had to go dig up a reference to assure themselves of that? Most articles have no citations. This is a good thing, generally. Those with unusual knowledge need ''references,'' but not stickypad citations. ] 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Everything must citable. That doesn't mean it needs to be cited. Some people have problem with this concept. As for what people think of our readers, my guess is that deep down, we all want the encyclopedia to be written for people like ourselves. Regards, ] 21:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Original research is a very important no-no, and since you deny doing any, I'll spend some time on it. Firstly, please read the policy ] to make sure you know what it is. And secondly, it's not particularly interesting if what you did is "currently active" or not. A number of the articles you created were based on original research, and the fact that they have now been turned into redirects, deleted, or draftified is no thanks to you; it has been done by other people and on these people's initiative. Examples: ] (redirected; discussed at the NOR noticeboard ), ] (deleted after ]), ] (unsourced, created by you directly in article space, moved to draft by another editor), ] (also created directly in article space and moved to draft by another editor), ] (deleted after ]), ] (deleted after ]).
*Just looked in to see if the conversation had taken a perk, or anyone eloquent had looked in - No. So Bishonendearhart, do terminate this because it is going nowhere - we are all agreed we are done with FAs - can't be bothered with all the new malarky and claptrap far too stressful, and insulting to the intelligence. This moment in time heralds the beginning of a brave new era for Misplaced Pages the FAs of ] (]); ]'s ] and those of a similar mind-frame are obviously the way to go. Sadly my blood pressure these days does not allow for porn queens, and my interest in Christ is confined to mass and praying for eternal redemption - not that I'm admitting to a link between the two. I wish all the new FA writers well - but I can't agree with them, I shall not be joining them on the main page - I will be continuing in my own odd referencing ways - so I think all that needs to be said has been said. ] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
** With respect, lowbrow or popular culture articles at FAs is not new. The very first archive of FA, ], includes ], ], ], and ]. I have nothing but respect for the many FAs of Giano on European architecture, and Geogre on lesser known English wliterature, at a quick glance. I can only hope to eventually be as skilled and prolific. However, we need more good writing on any subject in the encyclopedia, including the ones that I or LuciferMorgan chose. If we have these subjects at all, they may as well be covered as well as possible, which, in the current way of doing things, means bringing them up to the standard of FA, which does seem to include citations. That is the current standard of the Misplaced Pages community, and it does have reasons behind it. ''(rephrased, with apologies) --] <sup>]</sup> 06:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)''


All these articles were created by you, and the problem with them was poor or no sourcing and egregious original research. Note also ] from {{u|Vanamonde93}}. ] &#124; ] 20:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC).
Here I am, up late to update DYK for the second time today (late both times because no-one else seems to want to do it, even though the next update page was ready to go ages ago) and what do I find? This is not a featured article by any stretch, but it is a nice, concise article, culled from 4 (FOUR) consistent obituaries in broadsheet newspapers, and someone adds tags saying it does not have enough citations and needs cleanup.
:also do drafts count in topic ban? as its not mentioned in WP:TBAN ] (]) 09:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm glad you asked. Yes, the ban does apply to drafts. None of the examples given at ] are drafts, right, but the ban covers all pages on Misplaced Pages. "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all ''pages'' (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the ''parts of other pages'' that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "]"." And it covers "discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Misplaced Pages". If you want to work on drafts in the ] area, you have to keep them off Misplaced Pages. I'll come back to a couple of other questions later. ] &#124; ] 10:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC).
:::Garudam has been disrupting my page as we speak
:::and yet he gave me a edit warning.
:::Please do something, he did it without any consensus. ] (]) 08:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::? Sorry, but what "my page" is that? I don't see Garudam editing your userpage or your talkpage. The last 9 hours they seem to have been busy editing ], a page they created themselves. Also, ], I remind you that you're not supposed to discuss pages in the ARBIPA topic area anywhere on Misplaced Pages - not even on my page, except to ask questions about, or appeal, the topic ban itself. Is the above post part of your ban appeal? ] &#124; ] 09:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC).
:::::Yes it is, it is about the disruptive edits.
:::::Garudam warned me of disruptive edits but he is the one doing it. I don't think I deserve a topic ban, see ], before my topic ban he kept removing an section he's doing it now too without any consensus and then edit warned me. ] (]) 11:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::], I'm not sure what you mean by saying Garudam "edit warned" you? Anyway, this complaint about another editor and what they did ''after you were T-banned'' doesn't look to me like it's related to an appeal of your ban; you have strayed from that on to general discussion of an ] article and of another user's editing there, which is not allowed. Also, they don't need consensus to make a bold edit (you also don't have consensus; it's just the two of you arguing on the talkpage). See ]. If their edit is reverted, which has so far not happened, then they'd need consensus to put it back.


::::::You'd much better focus on other areas now, and on showing you can edit well away from ], which you're ''banned'' from. You have appealed to me now; I will not lift the ban; did you read the information about ban appeals in my ban notice? What you can do after appealing to me is described . You can appeal either at the ] ("AN") or the ] ("AE"). Or, theoretically, at the ] ("ARCA"), but I wouldn't recommend that, as it's run by the Arbitration Committee which is glacially slow. You'd better choose between AE, where your appeal will be decided by uninvolved admins, and AN, where it will be decided by the community of editors. Take a look at the noticeboards to see how they function, and think carefully about which one you prefer. I have not imposed a limit for how soon you can appeal, but my advice would be to wait at least a few months, and to edit well and constructively in other areas while you wait, as that will give your appeal a better chance. Note also that you can freely edit all topics at our ] projects; you're only topic banned at the English Misplaced Pages. Ask if anything of this is unclear to you. ] &#124; ] 14:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC).
Citations? CLEANUP?? Honestly. -- ] ] 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::look at my talk page , "November 2024".
:::::::You tbanned me for "disruptive edits" and "original research" could you provide evidence for disruptive edits. ] (]) 15:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::(] padding by...) JJP, may I suggest that you carefully and fully read Bishonen's post immediately above yours. Then read it again. Your response to it is a classic example of what is known on Misplaced Pages as ], and that behavior will absolutely, positively do you no good. Indeed, if you keep it up it will likely get you blocked for an extended period, if not indefinitely. Stop complaining about the other editor. Just stop. No matter how mad you are, no matter how upset you are, no matter how unfairly/unjustly you might feel you are being treated, just STOP. Now. My advice to you is to edit some other topic, or edit a Misplaced Pages in another language. ] (]) 19:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks, ], you're very right. It's all right for ] to ask for examples of disruptive editing and original research, though, as those were some of my reasons for banning them. JingJong, here are some examples. (DE and OR can blend into each other, so some of the below items are examples of both.)
::*You added an extremely bad main source for your article ] (later moved to ]) ], only a few minutes before you submitted the draft to AfC. The source is A. K. Mozumdar's ''Chaulukyas of Gujarat''. Or A. K. Majumdar, as you write it; perhaps both transcriptions are correct, I don't know, but it's clearly the same person. It's still very much used in the article. As a source for history, that's absurd. Our article, under the name ], describes the writer as "an ] spiritual writer and teacher associated with the ] in the United States." He may be an admirable writer in his field, I couldn't say, but he's obviously not remotely a historian, or a reliable source for history. This gives rise to concern over your competence to edit historical articles in this area.
::*Editing against consensus ]. Note Remsense's edit summary.
::*Original research: ] of ] (now a disambiguation page). Compare ].
::*], you change the area drastically in the infobox, are reverted, then ]. What is the article reader supposed to make of those wildly varying figures? You realise they can't see your edit summaries, I hope. Also, can you remember your source for ] in another article?
::*] to ] is not in the cited source, at least I can't find it (and clearly the experienced editor TompaDompa couldn't either, as they reverted you).
::*Creating a multitude of non-viable and poorly sourced articles is also disruptive, as I have mentioned above.
:*I also want to say I was sorry to see ], JingJongPascal. I hope you're getting help. ] &#124; ] 21:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC).
:*:Don't worry @], most of that is humour! ] (]) 06:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:*:I wouldn't say that the Mughal Empire one was disruptive, as the sources were present in the article themselves, but I can agree on the "Indian Empire". ] (]) 06:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


== December music ==
::I have moderated my comment above, now the balance of my equanimity has been restored. Obviously it is possible to add refs after every sentence (see ]) but I really don't see the point in this case. The only mildly difficult fact in ] is that he was "recognised as the leading landscape painter in Wales" (by whom? when?) but that is cited (and, on reflection, I suppose I ought to cite "the biggest man-made hole in Europe, like Breughel's Tower of Babel, but in reverse"). But "cleanup"? How, for goodness sake? -- ] ] 17:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
{{User QAIbox
| image = Ehrenbach, snow on grass melting.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
I agree with your post for Simon, - perhaps sign it or it looks as if I wrote it which I don't deserve ;) -- ] (]) 09:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah. I wrote it up for an e-mail, and then, when it turned out he didn't have wikimail, pasted it in as was. It does have an e-mail signature! Altogether an illustration that I shouldn't post when I'm half asleep. ] &#124; ] 11:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC).
:: Listen today to the (new) ] --] (]) 10:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::On the heckelphone! Thanks, ]. ] &#124; ] 11:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC).
:::: Listen today to ]'s 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the ] when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording with ], because he was on my ] this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. --] (]) 16:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: I come to fix the cellist's name, with ] and new pics - look for red birds --] (]) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: Today is ]. --] (]) 16:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: Thank you for your refreshing seasonal message! - ] it's another great woman, soprano ], and I found a 1963 Christmas Oratorio detail. 10 years earlier than that cycle, Bach wrote ] for the 1724 season, based on seven songs, - my focus this year. Expect three stories for the three days they celebrated in Leipzig ;) - Enjoy the season! Refreshment in the melting snow, and I picked icicles for a January image, bzzt ;) --] (]) 21:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Seeking assist on ] ==
::<small>PS - please don't stomp on ''me'', Bishzilla!</small>


Hey there. Needing urgent assist with this IP address in ], which has persisted with ] and personal attacks. I for one believe such attitudes are simply ] for contributing objectively on WP.
:Bishzilla stomp on tag spam. ] '']'' 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
::As a point of reference, could be interesting to "the gang". ''']''' 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I wanted to settle an argument with a friend about "dyke," so I looked at ]. Citations all over the place and tags for "has no sources" to go with every one of them. On the other hand, there are articles like ] where there is '''only''' a box. What the hell is that? Is this a graphic novel or an encyclopedia? Why can't the "we need facts" jerks go beat up on the "here is a box and I cannot finish a sentence" yaboes? ] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC}
::::Oh Utgard, I do so agree with you. ] 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I just go around all day, hitting the "Random" button. I recommend it to anyone. See what's really in Misplaced Pages. The #1 hit type is probably "footballer" -- usually either 2 lines or 2,000 -- and then "X is a place in Nation the end," and I'm not talking about those Census department things you see for US cities and towns, either. Then we get to the really stomach churning "This is a single by MinorBand released in RecentMonth and here is a picture of it." I released singles, an e.p., and an l.p. in a former band, and hell if I'd expect anyone to look them up here. What the heck could I say about them? "We released this, and it got played on about 110 radio stations, according to tracking reports. We sold all the copies we made of the first pressing, and that netted us a grand total of $280?" Bleck. Then again, I'm not a "footballer." ] 12:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Looks like we have another truly delicious (fire-breathing, even) citation conflict brewing. ]! That's what you get for mentioning an FA that doesn't have a citation per sentence...
::::] <sup>]</sup> 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::*Aloan should have known better than to mention it in the first place - it is like putting up an advert for a candy factory next to a wasp's nest. It only encourages them. I just wish they would write something interesting and show us all how it should be done - lead by example - Yes i know some of them do write and No, I don't want to be pointed to a page on porn stars, pop stars and fruits of said stars' labours - referenced entirely by equally dodgy internet sites ] 19:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Seeking your kind attention. Thanks. ] (]) 11:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh dear - I didn't mean to poke the hornets nest. :( The people on the talk page need to read about the apocryphal ]/] "cake" incident, (]?!) and watch the "I Know My Place" sketch.


:Hi @], this issue is being discussed in another user talk page already: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Cullen328 . I was first being attacked by this user as he accused me for being a disruptive person when I was just stating facts with citations from CTBUH. ] (]) 12:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
"I just wish they would write something interesting and show us all how it should be done" - quite. I just stumbled across ] this morning. Such pearls before, um, I had better stop. -- ] ] 15:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::Hi ], do take note that this is one of the many instances of ] by said IP address, going against ]. 12:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 12:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Instead of accusing the other Wiki editors, why are you still refusing to answer my questions on the main discussion page as of now? Aren't we supposed to discuss on the talk page? ] (]) 12:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*Why are you moving this from ]'s talk to mine, ]? Please don't canvass admins at random. I'm afraid I don't in any case have the time for it. ] &#124; ] 13:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC).


== Métis Nation British Columbia ==
===Be nice to people: reply to AnonEMouse===
''Section break retained, obsolete rant removed. Thank you, AnonEMouse. ] | ] 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC).''


I saw you'd blocked some of the IP's. Thanks for that. I've also semi-protected the page for a couple of weeks as this is ongoing. Cheers ] (solidly non-human), ], ] 15:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
===Continued===
:Thanks, ]. There was a note at ]. Nice IPv6 range, wasn't it? You may have noticed it had done ''nothing'' on Misplaced Pages other than persistently vandalizing that particular article. How's it going? It's pretty cold and dark here (Stockholm) this time of year, but I have a feeling it's probably seriously moreso where you are. ] &#124; ] 16:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC).
Just for chuckles, I think I should point out that I have never stated my credentials, and I hope to never do so. I have a ''job'' that some people assume implies those things, but I have said very, very little about that, wish I had said less, and Giano is an absolute cypher. He has never indicated so much that he ''has'' a job, much less what it is, and even less where he went to college and how long. The point being that, unlike quite a few people -- and particularly the people demanding to have us respect their authorit-ay, neither of us, and certainly not Bishonen, either, mentions credentials. We point to our ''work here at Misplaced Pages,'' which is a different thing, and then only, as Bishonen says, in exasperation. Since I arrived here, I've been annoyed by the pop obsessed younguns at Misplaced Pages shouting "amen" to each other. To me, this is a fight over whether we have articles on these subjects, not whether we have FA's on them. If we get articles on them, they're eligible '''if''' they can be properly discussed and analyzed. 90% of the time, they can't. ] 11:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::They have been at that article for a while. It's not bad here ({{cvt|-25|C}}), warmer than normal and less snow than usual. We have ] from 1 December to about 12 January. No sun for us. How cold is Stockholm at this time of year? ] (solidly non-human), ], ] 16:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Oh.. now I'm ashamed to mention our paltry temperature. It's only -5° C. But there's a biting wind from the north! ] &#124; ] 19:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC).
::::The wind is always a killer at subzero temperatures. ] (solidly non-human), ], ] 22:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


== Revert ==
:::Well, neither you nor Giano is listed at ], so that's good. ] 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC) M.S.


I'm sorry but I don't understand your revert here at all:
::::Is there a category for "You will have to work out for yourself whether this Wikipedian knows anything about anything"? -- ] ] 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Is this asking to corroborate it with more reliable sources per ]? Or is it referring to "Avoid stating opinions as facts."?
::What an enormity that is! A category populated by people using userboxes to self-identify their academic credentials is wrong on so many levels that one scarcely knows where to begin. I want an "it's the work, and it's always the work" box. ] 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You pointed out citing it alone in the edit summary is not sufficient . But it makes sense otherwise if there is no citation in article.
:::Oh, and I should have added a P.S., above. Yes, I am an elitest in many ways on content, but that's because I'm such a firm believer in the power of The People. Because I believe that the aggregation of humanity can achieve great things, I think it should never be allowed to settle for half-assed spitballs shot at the screen. I have never believed that anyone or anything "is owed" an article, nor that any contributor automatically has the right to write whatever she or he wishes. Everyone should write encyclopedic content, and I think everyone can. Therefore, "Mikey is a footballer with Slovak Spartan B Community Cultural Center Extension club" is bad. I would be insulting the author if I said, "That's all he can write and all he has to write." ] 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You also said it is redundant, but I don't understand why? It's added in a section referring to conflicts and as a military leader. ] (]) 05:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:Please discuss issues relating to the article at its talk page, ]. However, while we are here, the description "brilliant military general" is not suitable for Misplaced Pages. See ] and ]. ] (]) 08:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


:Please take it to article talk per Johnuniq. ] &#124; ] 10:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC).
==Taj Mahal==
Any ideas would be gratefully received. Cheers. --] 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:"Taj Mahal"..? Named after that Indian restaurant in Slough, wasn't it? ] | ] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
:::Don't be so silly Bishonen, it was erected by the Indian Government (circa 1979) to provide a photo-shoot opportunity for the late Princess Diana, and also as a place for very unlovely, and usually ugly people to pose for what they imagine are romantic holiday snaps to bore their friends with at home. The latter should be banned from being photographed anywhere, in fact they should be made to put plastic buckets on their heads when leaving their houses - so they don't spoil other people's photographs taken for the architecture. ] 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::Ah! thank you O ]. :-) ] 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Uh... ], right? ] | ] 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
::::Aaaahhh! Where Cthulhu? ] '']'' 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC).


==Again== ==Io Saturnalia!==
Having trouble with another admin - ] - who thinks you are not allowed to delete things from your talk page. ] 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:You're not entitled comments by other users from article talk pages, if I understand this correctly. ] 23:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::This had to do with my own talk page. ] 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Ah, I stand collected. ] 03:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Bishonen - are you saying now that I ''cannot'' delete the conversation from my talk page once it is complete? Because as far as I am concerned, it is complete, and there isn't anything derogatory or incorrect with me removing it... ? ] 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
:No, I'm saying you ''can'', but it's ''rude''. That's not such a mysterious idea, is it? Some things are allowed but are nevertheless derogatory. You won't get punished for them, but they won't do anything for your reputation, either. Lots of things are like that in , right? For example, it's not illegal to speak unpleasantly to your neighbors, but it's not nice either. That's how it is with this. To uphold your reputation, to be pleasant, the optimal way to handle your talkpage is to leave stuff on it until you archive the whole page (or archive all but the most recent of it—that's what I do). Replying to messages is nice too. But none of us are always nice, I guess /looks through own talkpage, blushes slightly at sight of roaring dinosaur sockpuppet/, especially when the other person is being rude. I'd hardly bother to reply to a template, I must say. I might even remove it, with an informative edit summary. But it would take a lot before I removed a real human message. ] | ] 01:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
::That's where we differ, then. I have been military for 20 years... thus, I learn the "regulations" and what is "permissible" (plus, operate on the oh-so-popular "better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission"). I'm quite sure that if I met someone in real life and had a discussion, then found out our "wiki" identities, I wouldn't change my real-life opinion of them (I see them as separate). But I am also a person who doesn't care if I "step on someone's toes" as long as I am within the rules. So whether or not it is "rude" is all within perception (but a permissible perception! that is why I kept attempting to correct the admin, and solicited your support). He tried to ''insist'' that I ''must'' keep it on my talk page, when I knew that I didn't have to. You see, my poison is that I am intelligent and operate on logic... thus, the neighbor example for me is that when my neighbor's dog took a dump in my lawn, it is logical that they should have just cleaned it up (I don't own a dog, so it is extremely obvious). I shouldn't have to knock on the door and ask nicely, nor remind them (as it is a duty of owning the dog)... so my answer? I put the crap in a plastic bag and attached it to their doorknob. Problem solved, and surprisingly no more dog crap in my lawn... am I worried about my "rep" with them? Actually, NO. Do looks of distaste bother me? NO. If that makes me rude, so be it (it isn't against the law to be so!). If I remove a human message it means (1) that I read it, (2) that I no longer need it (unlike what I have archived or saved currently - for projects or problems I am still trying to finish, or research, or work out), or (3) that I don't care for it. Does that make me rude? Maybe. I don't care what people think about what I do as long as it is within the law/rule. The times I am outside or violate, I am humble enough to "take my lumps" and admit my mistakes (as I have been blocked for 3RR, etc, of course). So if a guy with a short haircut comes up to you in Chicago and tells you to "put the &$*#! cigarette out" in a harsh tone while you are puffing away underneath a "no smoking" sign, well... it's probably me, and I don't care if you think I am rude. :) So don't take it personal, but I think the conversation is done and I will probably clean my talk page. :) ] 02:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
:::That suits me. I've been in academe for x years, learning to go by logic and analogy, and I have some trouble with yours. You give several examples of how you think it's proper to be rude ''for a reason'', yet round off your message with rudeness for no reason: telling me the conversation is done, as if I had been needlessly bothering you with my unsolicited opinion. That's more like telling a person chewing gum under a no-smoking sign to put their &$*#! cigarette out. I don't take it personally, you understand, it's just the logic of it. ] | ] 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
::::Point taken. :) Hope to chat with you soon... serious. ] 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
==Бинг-Банг==
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
But can be found ] 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" |
:Er... anything you say. Bing bang, dear. ] | ] 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!'''
:: Or, in the immortal words of ], "I say! Ding dong!" -- ] ] 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
|-
:::How's your Hebrew today, ALoan? ] | ] 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 14:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Fair to non-existent. But surely this is ]? Is there a kind of Russo-Slavonic Hebrew written thusly? -- ] ] 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
|}
:::::That would be בינג-באנג ! ] 23:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Or, in Swedish, bork bork! ] | ] 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
:::::::Reminds me of my children's school concerts ] 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::How wonderful that they're so ''talented''! ] | ] 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
:::::Is this some kind of ] thing? "Oh, Бинг-Банг, bing bang, ding dong, a בינג-באנג, bork bork!" A sure-fire winner, or my name is not Mikhail Yosef Caneskisson-Smythe. -- ] ] 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
::::I've listened to the song about 40,000 times now and I'm still not sick of it! ] 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
:::<smacks self about the head> I am slow on the uptake, but have just read the relevant articles. The "boyakasha" should have been a give-away. Sigh. His cousin is a professor of psychology, you know. -- ] ] 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
::Indeed, the ] entry is extremely informative. We can probably FAC-it-up with little effort. ] 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
:Can't hold a candle to Swedish ]. Hear and see his masterpiece of inappropriate stereotyping ] ! Oh noes a redlink. Anyway, the Dr. is according to Misplaced Pages also famous in Japan (I admit this was news to me) as Carlito. ] | ] 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Oh, wow, Elsie, I can't believe it! ] is ! You'd better go give your expert opinion. ] | ] 04:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC).


== Season's Greetings ==
== Keeping sewage out of the wine ==
{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FFF7E6;"
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Season's Greetings'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The '']'' (1563) by ] is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. ] (]) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|}
==Continued hounding despite your warning==
{{Ping|Qalb alasid}} has been following my edits for a while now. Last time he reverted my blanking of promotional content from the userpage of a self promotional SPA which led to you for battle ground conduct as they did so only to now they have reverted my ] of ] ,] ,] and issued me a frivolous warning for disruptive editing . Additionally, they have also closed a merge discussion initiated by me on ] and edited ] where I am one of the main contributors. There is a pattern of ] me here and seemingly oppose anything I do. - ] (]) 04:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hi, ]. I agree Qalb's warning was pretty frivolous. If you don't like a change of an article to a redirect, {{u|Qalb alasid}}, it's easily reverted (as I see you did). Reverting is enough; no need to issue warnings to experienced users about something like that. If either of you feels strongly enough, your next step should be discussion on talk. For the rest of your examples, Ratnahastin, I don't really think the overall picture rises to harassment or hounding. ] &#124; ] 14:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC).
::Thank you, @]. @] - I am not following or hounding you – please assume good faith.
::For the record, I have been involved in backlogged merge proposals since September 29, 2024. .
::Regarding the 3 articles cleared, I found it a bit odd that these articles, which have been around for a few years, were cleared without discussion. The content within these articles were not merged into the redirects either. Blanking the article without rationale appears to be disruptive – why did you feel the need to do so? Perhaps you can continue that conversation on the respective article's talk page. As per ], "Illegitimate blanking of valid content without reason is considered vandalism, a form of disruptive editing. Other forms of blank-and-redirect, although not vandalism, are still undesirable."
::Based on ], "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles," shows that I am acting within the rights as a user. In fact, the same policy also states, "Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor." Which leads me to ask, @], is accusing someone of hounding and following assuming bad faith? ] (]) 19:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Oh, gee. You're both assuming bad faith AFAIC. Why don't you just both try to avoid each other and dial down the reporting and complaining and (this is for you, {{u|Qalb alasid}}) ]-quoting? Just a suggestion. ]. ] &#124; ] 21:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC).


== Thank you for granting the selfblock ==
Hi - I'm interested in any comments you (or anyone watching this page) have concerning ]. It's an essay, there's a talk page, I assume you know what to do. -- ] <small>(])</small> 04:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Made getting ready for my exams and finishing some major papers so much easier for my ADHD addled brain. ] (]) 23:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)<br>
== ] ==
:Very glad to hear it! ] &#124; ] 04:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC).
{{Shortcut|WP:ZN}}
::] Merry Christmas, young clown! ] ] ] 04:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC).
FYI. I'm posting here because we have orders from on-high to make this as widely known as possible, and this is a well-watched User talk. It's both a "proposed" and "already done" merger of V, NOR, and RS. It occurred, and then got held-up when Jimbo got involved. Long story. Five months of editing to slog through. But I'm sure of interest to people. ] 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
== Happy holidays! ==
:*I have neither the time nor the energy to read all of that, can we just have a brief (very brief) synopsis of the outcome - altogether too tiresome and fruitless to join these discussions. ] 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:golden; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]
'''Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025! ♦ ] (]) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
</div>


== Hope you are doing well ==
::OK, as briefly as possible: ] is a merger of ], ], and ], originally suggested by SlimV, and subsequently worked on by a few hundred people. Reasons: "verifiability" is actually a misnomer; V (a policy) relied on the often sloppy RS (a guideline) for its explanations; NOR and V are outcomes of the same question, viz. "can this be attributed to a reliable source?"; one page instead of three will be enormously easier to manage.
]
I am finding myself poking at this project more and more, these past few weeks, and wanted to wish you well for the holidays. You've always been one of the good ones, in my book. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hi, ], very nice to see you back! Bishzilla rotates at ya! ] &#124; ] 22:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC).


==Merry Christmas!==
::Long story begins when Jimbo notices five days ago. Slim had informed him and the mailing list last October, but it was forgotten about apparently. Jimbo has requested: "a broad community discussion on this issue" (]) followed by "a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results" (]). Note, ATT is not meant to change policy at all, but to make it more concise and maintainable. ] 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
{| style="border:1px solid 3px; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}}; padding: 5px;"
|rowspan="2" valign="center" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: center; height: 1.1em;" | '''A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!'''
|rowspan="2" valign="centre" padding: 5px;" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|-
|style="vertical-align:top; border-top:1px solid gray"|
<br />
<big>Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!</big>
<br />
<br />
<big>Cheers</big>
<br />
<br />
<big>] (]) 08:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</big>
|}


==Joyous Season==
"V - RS - NOR - ATT" somebody please explain to me what he is talking about. ] 14:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:green; background-color:lightyellow; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] ]{{Center|]}}


I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! {{smiley|christmas}} Whether you celebrate ], ], ], ], ] or your hemisphere's ], this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. ] (]) 16:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC) <br />
:I suppose it's the duty of the hostess. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:ATT are shortcuts to pages in Misplaced Pages space, namely <s>Vandalism</s> Verifiability, Reliable Sources, No Original Research, and Attribution. It's quite touching to see the country cousin trying valiantly to get his bearings at the party! ] | ] 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
:::I don't bother to read all of those things, if one wants to stay up to date one would have to read them allevery day, as someone is always tinkering about with them, then I would not have time to write anything. Just tell me when it is all sorted out, then I will shout if I don't agree. I never use hiroglyphics or symphonics or whetever daft English word it is to describe all this initial talk ] 15:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


<small>Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{]:]}} to your fellow editors' talk pages</small>.
::::Sorry. I have just linked the shortcuts at first mention. ] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
{{clear}}
</div>


] (]) 16:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::As ever, the questions are in the ''uses'' made of policy, not the wording. If someone goes along to say "all articles without references should be deleted," that's a huge mistake and a massive case of dickishness (esp. when there are thousands of really, really, really, really, really offensively bad articles that wouldn't be caught because, while they say that Fubbies Magic Pills are the greatest things ever, they link to Fubbies Magic Pills website or Mikey's Fan Favorites Web Guide or someplace...or even a spam site). OR is not lack of sources. OR is OR, and lack of sources is lack of sources. Instead of spending :30 to go on the web to research "Oh yes, it's real, so we should KEEP this article that says 'Timmy is a cricket player'," let's spend that time getting educated and evaluating sanely and carefully the inherently POV and blind reviews. Let's, while we're at it, not go around fact tagging articles that say what is found in ''every'' reference. ] 17:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


== Season's Greetings ==
:::"All articles without references should be deleted". ] actually advocates this exact idea on his user page: "Delete all articles which are unreferenced, six months from now."


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FFF7E6;"
:::"OR is not a lack of sources." Indeed. I like the latest sum-up on this: "Although everything in Misplaced Pages must be attributable, in practice not all material ''is'' attributed." (One of Slim's nuggets.) Of course, what happens in practice is indeed more important than what the pages say; policy should reflect ''best'' practice, not general practice. Over the now nearly six months of debate re WP:ATT, putting to rest the descriptivist argument ("well hey, people already cite Usenet, so why shouldn't policy let us cite Usenet?") was one of the hardest parts. At one point, people were considering writing a weakened exception for pop culture articles into the policy...*shudders*. ] 18:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
:::::in my earliest wiki-days way back in May 2004 (a life-time ago) I used to write a quick page to fill a red link and never add references (it was not required) unless it was what I think of as a "proper page" - and I still stand by every word I've ever written, and if I could remember all the pages could easily find references to support them. However, I expect somewhere in all those pages I have given the odd architect the wrong Christian name, or have a date a couple of years out. I do not think those pages should be deleted - but I know what I am talking about (<small>said modestly</small>) a lot of editors here do not; and that is a problem. I hesitate to disagree with Geogre but I can see where "World" is coming from on this one. '''BUT''' let us be quite clear I do '''NOT''' think every verb needs to be linked directly to a page number - because that is meaningless. I frequently (Hannah springs to mind) use reference books that were printed 80 or 90 years ago in very small numbers - how easy would it be to cite "Crewe Vol III p 245" who could hope to check it - without the help of a very flexible credit card? (Incidentally there were only two volumes of that work) - so my point is there always has to be an element of trust, which is the reason I was so angry about the "Essjay affair" - otherwise we are going to have to say if a reference book is not currently in ] it is ineligible for citing on wikipedia. I don't know the answer - and if I do, I don't like it because it will spell the end of wikipedia being the !encyclopedia anyone can edit". I post this here because my days of arguing are over, no one ever agrees with me anyway ] 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Season's Greetings'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | <blockquote>When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it." </blockquote>


(Text on page 17 illustrated in the ] in ]'s ''Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers'', illustrated by ], London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.)
::::::(butting in uninvited...) Giano, I completely agree, and your experience mirrors mine exactly. Indeed it looks like we joined around the same time (me in April), and my earlier articles are still unreferenced, though I stand by every word, most of which is pulled from books in my library which I accumulated while getting my (verifiable!!!) doctorate. I don't quite know where to jump in on the ATT discussion. Bishonen, is your experience similar? A lot of us did a lot of writing three years ago which is still quite good, should not be deleted, and will be tedious to reference ... but I'm going to start doing it soon. Cheers all, ] ] 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


]] 04:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::As far as Worldtraveller's User page goes, I'd sum it up as an idea to light an enormous fire under Misplaced Pages's ass. I appreciate the sentiment, even if I disagree with the specifics. Regarding Giano's sentence on trust: here I agree fully. There's an enormous element of trust in other users required to judge an article under review (at AfD or FAC or whatever). I don't think it healthy or unhealthy—it's inevitable, and I see it as one element of that the project requires. But it's fraught with a lot of difficulty given the nature of Misplaced Pages and it's emphasis on "anyone." Essjay is the obvious example, but you can find a smaller example everyday. Antandrus has a "verifiable" doctorate. Well, I don't know that. I don't know who Antrandrus is. S/he doesn't know who I am. (Not to be picky Antandrus, just using an example in front of me :). ] 21:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|}
::My view is that '''all''' pages should have a list of references which will verify the facts on the page. If a fact is contraversial, outlandish or a very new theory then a specific cite to its source should be made. The Pope is a Roman Catholic; William I fought at Hastings in 1066 and Palladio was an unfluential architect do not need to be specifically cited, just a book which agrees with those facts mentioned in a reference section at the foot of the page is sufficient. Credentials for the anonymous are meaningless so lets not have them at all. ] 22:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


== Happy Holidays! ==
Good point about the books, Giano. (Some ways up. As usual, everybody and their aunt has already posted by the time I've written some reply to somebody, in this case principally to '''Antandrus'''.) Some of the people advocating coverall inline citing seem to assume that that would mean any editor will then be able to check any fact with a mouseclick. I don't have any sources as exclusive as yours, but you may remember I've written ] which is principally verified through ''books'' written in '']''. That page contains quite a few counter-intuitive and surprising facts. They're cited, yes, but, in practice, nearly all readers are going to have to take what I say on trust anyway. And that's ''with'' me following all the rules. Anyway, no, I don't think I'll weigh in, Antandrus. I'm too slow and laborious a writer to do any good in a big free-for-all. It really bugs me when I spend half a day penning (keyboarding) a paragraph, and 15 minutes after I post it, somebody like geogre replies with two screens of much more cogent arguments... grrrrr... ROARRR... where Tokyo!? ... sorry, where was I? I appreciate Marskell turning up to sing a siren song , but I'm trying to write a sandbox article here, and there are enough interruptions without diving into the ]. Not planning to FAC it, no... I'm tired of FAC. It's not so much verifiability issues in my case, as the tone on FAC altogether. (One reviewer, when I took issue with what seemed outright hostility, assured me that it was nothing personal, simply the FAC culture nowadays!) And the joys of "having" a FA — in the sense of being scolded for laziness if you don't "maintain" it, and scolded for "ownership" if you do — are definitely overrated anyway. Being the main contributor to an actually controversial article, which mine are not, must be far worse in this regard, too — it's got to be "You don't ] it, you know!" and "The main contributor hasn't bothered to maintain it!" all day long. Altogether, writing FAs can too easily turn you into a common criminal in the eyes of others. How many times has Giano, who never even mentions his massive FA contributions, been told that he expects, nay, demands, a "free pass" (pah!) because of them? Nice little wrinkle, that, don't you think? Anyway, an article's an article, with or without the star. If it's good, it's a good contribution to the encyclopedia. ] | ] 22:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

::Could not agree more, at the end of the day, a FA is only a FA because a load of people (many of whom never write a FA) say it can be, likewise it can be FARCd because the same people say it can't. I an tired of aruging with these people let them run the FA side of things if they want to. At the end of the day anything on Misplaced Pages that is good is good and anything less is usually appalling. Like many people I can recognise the good pages without having to look for a silly little star - so who needs FAs? ] 22:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
<div style="border: 3px solid #01902a; background-color:#fff; text-align:left; padding:2px;"><div style="border: 2px solid red; background-color:#fff; text-align:left; padding:6px;" class="plainlinks">]

] (]) is wishing you a ] ]! This greeting (and season) promotes ] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

''Spread the cheer by adding {{tls|Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''
</div></div> ] (]) 08:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hello Bishonen, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
- ] (]) 01:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
|}


== Happy Holidays ==
:If, as we recognize, it's all a matter of trust anyway (and it is), and if a number of us from the old days routinely wrote true and good articles and didn't try to thumb through the books we've read to cite them, then we're up against the fundamental bullflop of it all. The people waving the flag of "verifiable or die" don't know the subjects and so cannot understand when a thing needs verification and when it doesn't. An article on a massively well understood subject like ] would be stupid to cite, unless it is reporting a fringe understanding or the historical development. Every reference in the world will say that it is the connection of actions in a narrative. Every reference in the world will say that it is a structural element of narration. However, people who have never read a single reference in the world will ask for a citation, and in the process they might miss it when the author goes off on a Roland Barthes 1956 ''Structures of the Short Story'' jag -- which should be cited, as it is a part of ]. My point is that if it's just "they say you can, so you can," "they" need to be worthy. If they're not, they'll demand when they should be quiet and be quiet when they should demand. They'll miss the made up print reference. They'll have no sense of what is credible and what is not. When brand new information gets written, our New Page patrollers sniff the air. "Jimmy is a successful businessman" can be speedily deleted or not based on how likely, how credible it is, not whether Jimmy's fan put in a citation or not. If the patroller is uncertain, he goes to Google. The point is that every part of Misplaced Pages works by credibility, interrogation, and trust in tension, and it depends upon a dynamic balance between them. It only works with ''educated'' judges, though, whose education is up to the matter being reviewed. If that's Jimmy's business, the level of education necessary for a valid judgment is one place, and if it's Hollaback Girl's prescience, it's somewhere else, and if it's an FA on Heisenberg, it's another place again. No one minds, so long as they feel that the readers have sound judgment to tell good from bad. I have no confidence in those judges most active at FA right now to know good from bad academic material, as they have ''demonstrated'' ignorance of language and content. ] 03:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]


== You are bound to know ==


] (]) is wishing you ]! This greeting (and season) promotes ] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! <br />
I've asked the owneres of some websites for permission to upload some images of country houses - so they have to fill in a form or something - anyone know what I am supposed to do to prove they have given permission? ] 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
:Nobody answered this query in all this time? Sheesh. That's not the way the salon is supposed to work. Image copyright is my least favorite subject, sorry. But yes, to the best of my belief there is something like a form to a fill in, and there are right ways and wrong ways of doing it... to make sure the permission sticks, for good, I suggest you contact a Commons admin who knows what's what. Raul comes to mind. Or, hmm... ]. ]. Or check out of Commons admins to look for people you have confidence in. ] | ] 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC).


''Spread the cheer by adding {{tls|Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''
:Sorry - I have been looking at masterpieces, like ] (from Donaldson's Dairy). I wonder how many of these literary gems I have been overlooking for all this time. I see it has been eviscerated, with learned contributions by the sainted ] cast to the four winds. See also general moan on ]'s talk page. -- ] ] 19:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
</div>] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Gah! Wikistress! == == Happy Holidays ==


<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">]]]{{Center|]}}
(tries to think about kittens) ] 09:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
'''Hello Bishonen:''' Enjoy the ''']'''&#32;and ''']''' if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Misplaced Pages. Cheers, ] (]) 15:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:. YoufedupwithFACtoohuh? ] | ] 10:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
]{{paragraph break}}
Indeed. Can I buy you a ]? ;) ] 10:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
</div>
:TheideaofwritinglikethisistoexpresswikistressI'dratherhavea]. I'verepliedtoyourquery . ] | ] 10:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC). ExpressandevokeImean. :-P ] | ] 10:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
<div style="padding-left: 2em; margin-top: 1em; font-size: 88%; font-style: italic">Spread the WikiLove; use {{tls|Season's Greetings}} to send this message</div>{{-}} ] (]) 15:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::A ]? I'll have a Gallo Gallon. ] 10:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


== I was responding to an edit summary I saw from User:Doug Weller ==
== The plaintive cry of the last standing deletionist ==


]. I was hitching up the dogs and I put a quick block on it, intending to give it a longer look when I returned. I didn't intend to add a second notice, just forgot to hit the correct toggle. I acted hastily in removing TPA, I'll concede. ] (]) 11:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
So, can anyone assess this other than me and ''the author of the article?'' It's about ], which is a shopping mall. Diff is . ] 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:I looked at my admin stats and I'm still at 174 total blocks; I'm way inexperienced at that aspect of the work. Happy to be corrected by somebody who has been in deeper kimchi than I. ] (]) 11:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::Kimchi. Hehe. ] &#124; ] 14:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC).

Latest revision as of 14:20, 25 December 2024


Platinum Goddess of Misplaced Pages. Cold and hard, but also beautiful and priceless.

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26

October music

story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Beautiful, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 21:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC).
Thank you! I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
My story today is about a composer and choir conductor, listen to his Lamento. - My story on 13 October was about a Bach cantata. As this place works, it's on the Main page now because of the date. I sort of like it because today is the birth date of my grandfather who loved and grew dahlias like those pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

User:151.124.106.64

I've extended your block on this account. This is yet another incarnation of a multiple sock that has been repeatedly reappearing over may months. The now expired short protection on my talk page was to stop previous attacks from other SPAs obviously linked to this. If you are not happy with my action, please feel free to do as you see fit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim, your block length is fine. However, did you notice I hardblocked them (in my second block)? I ticked "Apply block to logged-in users from this IP address", because after checking the IP's contributions, I realised that the attack on you on your page had to come from some way you had disobliged them — say, blocked them — not in the form of this IP but in some other incarnation — likely an account, or more than one account. Your longer block is not a hardblock. Should it be? Bishonen | tålk 11:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC).
Sorry, missed that, hard blocked now. There are some giveaways with this vandal in that their other edits follow a pattern, notably references to Samuel Claesson Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Macrobiotic Diet

Firstly, neither of those comments about Bon Courage were "attacks". If you read their talk page, you'll find it is littered with other people complaining about their editing warring.

Secondly, neither was my editing "disruptive".

The Misplaced Pages has strict policies, which surely you as an admin must be aware off including; a) the removal of any content that is not supported by references, b) NPOV/bias, c) discussion on the talk page,

all of which I was engaged in, at an intelligent & informed level, while Bon courage was just grinding their POV & reverting, & offering zero engagemnt.

You have no grounds to enact such an onerous punishment.

Thank you. Not a similar account name (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see. There's a whole load of material on the internet about you abusing your admin powers, and blocking people based on "non-existant personal attacks" - precisely as you have done to me, so I guess I am wasting my time appealing to reason with you?
If you care at all about 'accuracy' on the Misplaced Pages, you've allowed the other party to turn the lede into nonsensical rubbish, absolutely contrary to facts.
They were, precisely I stated, just gaming the system to gain control over the topic. Not a similar account name (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
You think neither "a pattern of wasting other people's time and energy for them" nor "a pattern of contention & mendacious interactions with others" nor "I am just the latest victim that they think they can pick on" are attacks? What does mendacious mean in your opinion? Or pick on? I disagree that a block from two pages, out of the whole of Misplaced Pages, is a particularly onerous sanction for the amount of disruption and battlegrund editing you've been doing. But you can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on your talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC).
Of course they are not attacks. Look at Bon courage's talk page for evidence. They're just a statement of facts. For a previous victim of Psychology guy and them, see
Same players, same game. Neither providing citations, neither have any knowledge of the topic they are controlling.
And if what I wrote was an attack, then why isn't this an outright threat?
"It won't work, and if you keep it up you will probably be removed from the Project, which likes to protect itself from this unwelcome crap. Bon courage (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2024"
They threatened this user, then they started making an identical threats to me, gaming the system to control the page.
Look at my edits, and what am I doing? I am asking them for citations they can't or won't provide.
I've read the rules and policies and are they clear, e.g. NPOV, no citations equal removal, etc.
I am following the rules, they are not, and you are rewarding them. Not a similar account name
(talk) 22:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
If you really think so, Not a similar account name, why don't you request unblock, which I have several times explained how to do? Or you could complain about my admin abuse at the WP:ANI noticeboard. Don't forget to mention the 'whole load of material on the internet about me abusing my admin powers and blocking people based on "non-existant personal attacks"'. Bishonen | tålk 23:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC).
@Bishonen or even Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review Doug Weller talk 09:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
@Not a similar account name There's a whole lot of stuff on the Internet accusing good Admins from people whining about their blocks, including me. All nonsense. Doug Weller talk 09:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Not a similar account name, it is incorrect to assume other editors have no knowledge in this topic area; it is also not true that sources were not provided to you (I provided several good ones on the talk-page). I have been reading books on fad diets and dietetics for over 20 years. Off-site I am in regular contact with food historians and have exchanged much research. You argued on the talk-page without providing any good WP:RS that the macrobiotic diet is a traditional diet. It isn't and no food historian would claim that. As I explained in a message on your talk-page, the best thing to do is to wait until your block expires and not attack other editors or get aggressive like this. If you have other interests, edit another topic area. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Editing warring user

Iimitlessyou has been edit warring and editing tendentiously on Lyle and Erik Menendez, to exclude the prosecution arguments from the article.

  • here is their first revert, removing a summary of the prosecutions argument.
  • here they reverted me a second time, calling me "completely biased" and a "pro prosecution editor" who is "adding debunked information"

At that point I placed a warning on their talk page (they blanked it) and I opened a dialogue (pinging them) on the article talk page which they ignored: They have completely ignored my request for discussion on the talk page: Talk:Lyle and Erik Menendez#Dispute over edits/lead by Iimitlessyou

  • They ignored that, and proceeded to revert me again here and called me a biased "pro prosecution editor".
  • They reverted me a forth time for "biased edits".

I reverted them 3 times and attempted to discuss, they reverted me 4.

I've tried to explain that the article is supposed to reflect the WP:RS, and this includes the prosecution case, but they seem to interpret this as "biased" against the menendez brothers who murdered their parents. Also note the editors heavy editing of the Netflix series article.

Zenomonoz (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Note I've taken this to the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard where evidence they fabricated quotes is posted. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, Zenomonoz, I had a go at it, but I'm afraid I just don't have to bandwidth to research all that at the moment. Even the first revert diff you give (while Iimitlessyou's edit summary certainly makes a bad impression) records so many changes, and so many sources, that I found it pretty unmanageable. Bishonen | tålk 19:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC).
No worries, it's handled. Feel free to blank my discussion here. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

WMF, Editor Privacy, Courts, and India

Hi Bish,

Have you been following the ANI saga? If not, you can read a summary at this month's Signpost.

So, the latest update in the case involves the Court threatening to not hear WMF until Misplaced Pages deletes the page on the case, created by Valereee, a week ago! More importantly, in the same hearing, WMF's lawyer appears to have agreed to provide the details of the unknown "authors" who have/had edited the page on ANI, to the Court in a "sealed cover".

Given the whimsical nature of Courts — not just in India —, there is always a probability of unsealing at a later date and hence, shouldn't such a step require making the broader community aware on how WMF plans to approach similar lawsuits in what is the most populous (and probably among the most litigatious) country in the world? Undoubtedly, WMF is not governed by the consensus of editors on how it approaches Courts and silence is strategic but perhaps some discussion will do good?

I want your opinions on the broader locus before I take this to one of the centralized discussion boards. Talk-page stalkers and watchers, feel free to join the discussion! TrangaBellam (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to interpret that tweet. Maybe it means something, maybe not. Perhaps The Hindu will have commented on it by this time tomorrow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
A little more: "The bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela were presiding over an application filed by Misplaced Pages seeking permission to file relevant documents in a sealed cover. Misplaced Pages, represented by Advocate Sibal, expressed concerns over the consequence of releasing the name of the author. The court, however, observed that the company was accusing a journalist (ANI) of being a state-sponsored agent and suggested that the author of the content should defend their statements." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • October 22–24 - Discussion phase
  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Misplaced Pages:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Misplaced Pages:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Kefas Brand

Hey Bishonen, Long time no see!, Hope you're well,

So in July 2024 you protected Kefas Brand, Rodney Kefas Namisi has now been created and I didn't know whether I should CSD or AFD it as don't know what the content was before, Gut instinct says CSD but I've had CSDs declined before because "the content is different" so just thought I'd ask you first, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010 16:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The content is in fact different, Davey2010, so I guess AfD is the better fit; Kefas Brand was very short and barebones, with a characteristic tabloid emphasis on the subject's romantic relationship and little other content. Lousy sourcing in both cases, though - seems to be all highly promotional interviews + press releases. BTW, Davey, might you have seen a new article for Kefas's brother Arnold also turn up somewhere? The original articles for the brothers were closely connected, as you can see from my note at both AfD's. Bishonen | tålk 18:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC).
Ah okay and nope not seen that yet, I came across this via Simple Misplaced Pages (https://simple.wikipedia.org/Kefas_Brand and tried moving the article here to Kefas and then found out it was protected etc
I'm guessing they've given up with here and will try Simple instead –Davey2010 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you! Dillard421♂♂ 20:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Hey, what a fine star! Thank you! Bishonen | tålk 20:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC).
Thank you for being so proactive at blocking that user IP. I appreciate your work. Dillard421♂♂ 20:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

My guess...

Is that a certain friend of ours does not in fact have years of experience of editing on behalf of other people, nor even of any kind of editing. If they had, they would by now know of the COI guideline, the sockpuppetry policy, etc etc, and would not have come along shouting out that they were flouting them. The stuff they posted was obviously AI generated, and was all about trying to make themself seem impressive, by being an experienced and professional editor, not some newby who doesn't know what they are doing. Anyway, it was pretty well obvious from the start that a block would almost certainly be arriving sooner or later.
Is all that so obvious that I might as well tell you that grass is green? Maybe, but I just felt like saying it anyway.
Give my regards to 'zilla. JBW (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi, James. Cornered themselves, didn't they? They lied here or they lied here, or both. And, as you say, the rotting LLM smell is unmistakable in both texts. Anyway, I've asked Girth Summit, on whose page I found them, for a CU; that may bring further clarity. Bishonen | tålk 00:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC).
Aah, "James". Very rarely I still get someone calling me that, and it seems really strange. Considering all the years when I used that pseudonym, it's remarkable how completely disaccustomed to it I've become. JBW (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I do know it's not even your real name! But in my book it's your Misplaced Pages name, you'll just have to grin and bear it. Or, well, I'll switch to "Jim" if you like. Bishonen | tålk 10:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC).
Welcome in pocket, little James! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 10:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC).
What do you mean "little"? I've never said on Misplaced Pages that I'm little, so if I am then that's a violation of WP:OUTING, and if I'm not then it's a lie. JBW (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Pint-size James! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 02:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC).
It's an odd one. I tend to agree with JBW (Jimbo II perhaps?) that the creation of a userpage like that isn't something an experienced spammer would do. On the other hand, they were editing from a clean proxy of some sort, which suggests to me that they were taking steps to cover their steps, so perhaps aren't as clueless as that userpage might suggest. Some sort of experiment to see how we'd react? Someone just messing around? Anyway, nothing more to do as far as I can see. Girth Summit (blether) 12:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Scheisst

ist wie Scheisst macht. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Deep Fried Dutch? Bishonen | tålk 14:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC).

NOTHERE user

Hi Bishonen, could you take a look at this user Powerinhand. He is making nonconstructive, tendentious edits promoting religious, caste and regional supremacy - here he added POV irredentist views claiming Haryana is South Punjab; it is a common viewpoint among Punjabi nationalists that Haryana is part of Greater Punjab along with the random "who" tag, more POV pushing by unfairly removing a figure's religious identity. He also created an article which seems to be promoting religious supremacy tacitly, by including surnames which are not exclusive to Sikhs (Malhotra and Uppal) and claiming that they are Sikh in origin, even though the adoption of those names precede the creation of Sikhism.

It seems pretty clear that they're NOTHERE. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

To add, incomprehensible tangents on peoples' talk pages: , , . Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
This is a new user, Southasianhistorian8. (Well, putatively. Hard to believe a user who creates a category page and shows awareness of WP alphabet soup as in this edit summary, and other signs of experience, is really new, but even so.) Much better IMO if you first warn them and explain what the problem is. Bishonen | tålk 13:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC).
Alright, will do. Thanks for the advice. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Blocked and tagged. They have a very idiosyncratic use of edit summaries, so you can report them here when they pop up again.-- Ponyo 20:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Ponyo. Will do. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much, my little Ponyo. Admittedly, it would have been more fun if they had answered my question on their page. ("My sockmaster is Truthfindervert, and yes, it's blocked, thanks for asking.") That never happens with my "Whose sock are you?" posts, but I won't give up hope that some day it will. Bishonen | tålk 20:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC).

The Admin's Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you very much :) - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 22:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)


Kefas Brand (film actor)

Look familiar? Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't look all the familiar. In that case, would you mind moving the now present article to the salted title? My quick overview of the sources shows that it is probably the COMMONNAME. Not that I have any skin in the game, the move and then blanked redirect page is what brought this to my attention in the NPP queue. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Bobby Cohn. Yes, I will. The new article is not the same as the old one, which means I don't want to prevent it from being created. I'm just now typing up an explanation to the creator, who of course only used the (unnecessary) disambiguator because they were unable to create the straightforward title Kefas Brand. (It would have been better to simply ask me, but these things happen with new users.) And, considering the various maneouvres to get the subject into Misplaced Pages (compare this section higher up on my page), I will definitely ask them about COI also. Bishonen | tålk 22:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC).
Hello @Bishonen I had come to message you about this subject and the issues relvoving around his article. I have not been long on Misplaced Pages and do not know much for I am still learning how to use Misplaced Pages. So I do not wanted to seek your permission and know is it okay to contact the subject via social media and consult about the ongoing. Because if these are paid promotions like stated I’m just wondering why a 23 year old will adamantly pay and pay and pay just to get on Misplaced Pages. On the other hand it could be true as stated by many editors but also could be wrong. On the hand again I believe most concerns raised could be based off of feelings and emotions by various editors. So kindly I’d like to know is it okay. I’m seeking your permission being you have had encounters with that subject previously. my English May not be so good for im not from an English speaking country but I am learning And Misplaced Pages is playing a great contribution so you could pardon my grama or tense. Thanks Idrisskunle (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
No, Idrisskunle, I don't advise you to contact the subject on social media to tell them their biography is up for deletion. Even if your intentions are good, it would surely result in meatpuppets — perhaps the subject's fans, perhaps the subject himself — coming here and opining at the Article for deletion discussion. AfD discussions, if they are going to be fair, must be conducted by actual wikipedia editors, not by people drawn here via social media. Compare also this guideline. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 12:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC).
@Bishonen thanks, I have understood that that’s why I wanted to inquire from you before anything I’m greatful for your response. According to my analysis I found the articles more of interviews where by if one is interviewed they’d answer the question as it is. However that would appear promotional but for this case I look at exactly what the subject is promoting and found not. Also the sources are reliable being they are not blogs but mainstream news papers from Uganda which I think answers the question of not notable sources. Also other references mention the subjects works. Personally I don’t know the criteria considered by Misplaced Pages to be worthy but I find no problem with the article and the references. Probably there is poor sourcing yes whereby I think being a new article it would have been granted more time to be enriched with more sources. That is what I think. But also I am Learning a lot from this specific article being I am forcused on becoming a better editor and contributor on Misplaced Pages so any guidance I totally welcome it.
once again thanks for your response im greatful. Idrisskunle (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah well

I tried.

Thank you for your swift action. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 00:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Not much you can do with a pure troll, Timtrent. And note the username also! Didn't exactly fit the supposed opinions, did it? Bishonen | tålk 00:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC).
Not much at all. Since I am not an admin I use militant kindness to allow them to find and use up the rope. It gives full evidence to those who can take action, and prevent harm. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 00:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Block evading

The IP that you banned for vandalism across many demographics pages in Latin America is back to making the same changes on another IP address 2A02:8440:250C:AAA4:5C9D:4864:F7C3:27F5 ElMexicanotres (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ydududu seems to be related to the ip ElMexicanotres (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Blocked both. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 13:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC).
PS, please take any further information to ANI, here, rather than to my page. Bishonen | tålk 13:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC).

Email

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ekdalian (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR in spite of being aware of WP:GS/CASTE

Hi Bishonen, CharlesWain has violated 3RR in the article on Guha (surname) in spite of an article talk page discussion initiated by me, just after I posted some relevant messages on their user talk page! Would request you to take necessary action. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

They have not. You should also avoid edit warring. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Why did you use {{noping|}} template while complaining about me here? If 3 revert is considered as WP:3RR violation then you have done the same by making three reverts since your very first revert is itself reverting this months old edit. CharlesWain (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, CharlesWain has made three reverts AFAICS, Ekdalian, as I think you yourself have also done. Consecutive edits count as one revert, and violating 3RR means making more than three reverts. You guys are both edit warring; please use the talkpage. And, Ekdalian, I have to agree that using the {{noping}} template here was not appropriate. Bishonen | tålk 11:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC).
Noted. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmm

I don't know whether making a joke about ARB would make you laugh or cause an appearance by Bishzilla (rwoar). Personally, I think they're missing out on your obvious experience. ❤️ Knitsey (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I was disappointed and admittedly (in my vanity) surprised. Perhaps I was missled by this comment into thinking it would be easy! :-) But I'm sure everybody acted in the best faith, so no jokes. Bishonen | tålk 09:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC).

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

just so you know...

Despite their 31 hr block Qalnor is continuing their attacks against Doug continuing their attacks against Doug. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

sorry for repeating myself sorry for repeating myself JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I did revert their edit, but I'm not sure if this was the correct thing to do. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
And it looks like they reverted back to their version with the attack. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, thanks, JoJo. I have to go to bed; hopefully Yamla will deal with it if it recurs (it's gone at the moment). That page is too fluid for me altogether; I tried over and over to fix various formatting errors, only to be edit conflicted. I'm a slow little old lady. Good night. And now I'm being edit conflicted on my own page too. Come on, guys. Bishonen | tålk 22:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC).
I've got it. --Yamla (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm a slow little old lady. No one says that about you as far as you know. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Past disagreements

We've had disagreements both here- and here not too long ago. The latter in particular, because the user reported was initially believed to have no connection to the sock-master, but after my report which detailed significant new developments, was deemed as having a "possible indicator of sockpuppetry". The sockmaster had multiple socks who were almost unblocked and "let go" by admins, where I had to take drastic steps to ensure that didn't happen. Given these 2 disagreements barely a few months ago, I think you being an uninvolved administrator is tenous, at best. I hope we can resolve this here, because I do not wish to take a monstrously confusing SPI case to A/E and divert focus. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Southasianhistorian8, I've done what I intend to do about that here. I've no further comment. Bishonen | tålk 11:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC).

I'm always coming to you for advice

The editor VaudevillianScientist is becoming increasingly upset that I and several other experienced editors in good standing support the deletion of "their" new article here. That editor has bludgeoned the discussion (not a huge problem given that they feel highly invested), they have canvassed for like-minded opinions on and off enWP (see here), and things are getting increasingly out of hand and a bit too personal. I advised them here to restrict their comments to content/topic, and to not comment about other editors, but they have unfortunately escalated to a bad-faith attempt to out me here, in which I am referred to as "Leonid." That name almost certainly refers to Leonid Schneider, who in January 2022 I was accused of being in a guffaw-inducing joe-job by one of Ariel Fernandez's many, many socks (see this SPI discussion). Needless to say I am not Schneider, and I invite any CU to determine that independently.

Being upset that one's article is at AfD is one thing, but attempting to out an "opponent" is something much more serious. I am however uncertain how best to proceed, especially with the AfD still active. Should I just proceed to ANI right now, wait for the AfD to end, or seek another remedy? Thanks in advance for anything you (or passing jaguars) suggest. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: they have just now replaced "Leonid" with my WP username. But the outing attempt was real, although false, and it remains in the article history. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
What a business. It's appropriate to block for outing, but I can't find any principle for how long such a block should be. Maybe indefinite? I've given them a month, but I'm just guessing. Any opinion, little talkpage stalkers? Meanwhile, I haven't revision deleted their post - would you like me to? My thinking is that a) it might encourage a Streisand effect, and b) since you repeat the name here, I suppose you're not that upset over it. Let me know if I'm wrong.
Meanwhile, their canvassing is also a serious problem. But I'll leave the closing admin to deal with that. Bishonen | tålk 22:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC).
For the outing alone, assuming it is a first offense, a month is reasonable. My feelings on it are slightly mitigated by the fact that OP is clear that they've missed the mark and that is not who they are at all, otherwise this would be a matter for the OS team. Malicious outing to try and gain the upper hand in a content dispute is not something we should just look past, even if is is done ineptly.
While they are blocked is a good opportunity to discuss the other points like canvassing so they can better avoid further blocks in the future, or at least can't say they weren't advised about it. Just Step Sideways 22:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
It's probably too late to do this now, but attempted outing should be treated the same as outing. Now we all know that JoJo's real name is not Leonid. – bradv 23:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I'll consider the canvassing (and the bludgeoning) after I've slept. I wish to lodge a complaint: there's a howling blizzard outside. Not sure I'll even be able to go out tomorrow. Bishonen | tålk 23:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC).
I am less angry at the identity that was falsely assigned to me than the fact that the editor intentionally attempted to out me in the first place. It's a stark example of bad-faith editing. Regarding a potential revdel, although I would prefer that post to be removed I will certainly defer to your post-sleep/blizzard judgement (or to that of any passing admin), as I am sure you have more experience than me in these matters. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
In that case, I've revdel'd. Bradv, do you wish to oversight? Bishonen | tålk 03:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC).
Done. – bradv 14:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Bishonen | tålk 14:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For dealing with a nasty case of racist, anti-semitic vandalism. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Your view on Mauryan Map

Hello, there is currently a discussion about the Maurya Empire map on the article, reputed users like Fowler&Fowler and Joshua Jonathan have been ignoring our sources and in my view, POV pushing, they have been coming up with excuses , which obviously violate Wiki guidelines on arguments. They have been doing disruptive edits, as of now, they have or tried to remove the Maurya Empire's maximum extent map (by Joshua Jonathan) and then Fowler followed up with "he did the right thing", we have provided dozen articles and books by reliable sources, they have been ignoring them and claiming our sources are not tur. Their map with holes is based on very vague sources. Don't mean to personal attack anyone, but your contributions will be appreciated. @Bishonen JingJongPascal (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is some ways above my paygrade. Too specialized for me. Bishonen | tålk 13:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC).
understandable, but do look out there for disruptive edits please. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

November music

story · music · places

greetings from a trip -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Aw, Gerda. November doesn't look like that where I am — it's all darkness and sleet and melting snow from the recent howling blizzard. (Defiantly:) But I like it like that! We're Northerners, Bishzilla and I! Bishonen | tålk 20:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC).
Where I live, it's also the exception. - I uploaded pics of a trip (to the warmth) that was a 10-day celebration of a 16 November event, but the day was also when a dear friend died. We sang Hevenu shalom aleichem at his funeral yesterday, and it was good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

C F A 04:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Replied and actioned. Bishonen | tålk 09:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC).

My topic ban

You have currently topic banned me from India related edits.

And reasons you have provided are "Orignal research" and "Removing templates"

1) removing the Afd template was a mistake as I was editing in mobile.

2) original research - I have done nothing as of original research on any article (that is currently active)

3) edit warring - @Garudam has been removing mentions of Gupta Empire and Magadha from Gupta Empire article, just because HE thinks it's not accurate.

He also vandalised a page I created "List of wars involving Magadha", he removed the classical Magadhan Polities section completely and added a "contradictory" tag (POV PUSHING)

He then warned me for vandalism and edit warring while he should be the one to be warned (for vandalising my page and gupta Empire).

4)bad faith - all I told is AirShip to actually read the book (he just read the title of the book and then said my argument is wrong, he should have been more cooperative). JingJongPascal (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban immediately violated here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
That topic box was started before my topic ban JingJongPascal (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You definitely violated your tban right there, JingJongPascal. Please read WP:TBAN more carefully. Your ban is in force, and it applies to discussions or suggestions about the topic anywhere on Misplaced Pages, also including edit summaries and your own user and talk pages. Don't talk about India, Pakistan or Afghanistan anywhere on Misplaced Pages! The only exceptions are "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" and "appealing the ban". What you have written above, and also below my ban notice on your own page, addressing me, can be taken as appealing the ban, so that part is all right. Though there's no need to write the same things twice - let's keep it here, on my page. (I will answer the specific points you make later, I'm a little short of time.) But after you were banned, you immediately went back to older posts by Doug Weller and Garudam on your own page and started arguing with them. That is not allowed, as it can't be called "appealing your ban", so don't do it any more. If somebody should come to your page and try to engage you in conversation involving India, Pakistan or Afghanistan, please simply tell them you can't discuss it because you're under a ban.
When I see you went to User talk:PadFoot2008 and started talking about Magadha and the Gupta Empire, I'm starting to wonder if you read WP:TBAN at all, as I urged you to?? If you violate the ban again, you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 10:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC).
I started that topic box before my topic ban, I will be more careful now on.
But please do clarify on Garudam and AirShip issue.
I don't think I did any thing Bad Faith or Original Research. Infact Garudam has been vandalising my page and disrupting gupta empire by his pov. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Vandalism/Disruptive edits
- Garudam removed an entire section from my article without any consensus. ]]
-Garudam removed mentions of Magadha from Gupta Empire article. ]]
-All i did was remove/revert these disruptive edits, but for some reason i am the one disrupting?
  • Bad Faith
- User talk:AirshipJungleman29#Magadhan Empire, no idea how this is bad faith.
  • Original Research
-Magadhan Empire article wasnt created by me.
- All my other articles were deleted for other reasons (unfinished or already covered somewhere else).
- Even my current article List of wars involving Magadha is getting called 'original research'.
@Bishonen my defence. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi again, JingJongPascal. I've taken a fresh look at the "contradictory" template question, that you and Gurudam argued about here, and also at your supposed assumption of bad faith in the discussion here. The template removal instance is really too complex to sanction you for, and, as Doug Weller has recently posted on your page, his belief that you'd assumed bad faith was at least partly based on a misunderstanding. These two things weren't very big deals to begin with, either, and I wish I had left them out. I've crossed them out on your page and in the log.

As for edit warring, which you mention, I don't think that was even in question in my T-ban notice - I don't see it there.

The other points, however — disruptive editing, canvassing discussions, original research, and battleground editing — were big deals, and remain so. Removing the AfD template from an article you had created yourself is a classically bad thing, but not as weighty, as it was one event, and you blame your mobile for it. (Not sure how that works, but never mind.)

Original research is a very important no-no, and since you deny doing any, I'll spend some time on it. Firstly, please read the policy Misplaced Pages:No original research to make sure you know what it is. And secondly, it's not particularly interesting if what you did is "currently active" or not. A number of the articles you created were based on original research, and the fact that they have now been turned into redirects, deleted, or draftified is no thanks to you; it has been done by other people and on these people's initiative. Examples: List of wars involving Gujarat (redirected; discussed at the NOR noticeboard here), History of India as a political entity (deleted after AfD discussion), List of Indian Uprising battles (unsourced, created by you directly in article space, moved to draft by another editor), List of Hindu-Buddhist states (also created directly in article space and moved to draft by another editor), Principality of Pataliputra (deleted after AfD discussion), Foreign relations of the Magadhan Empire (deleted after AfD discussion).

All these articles were created by you, and the problem with them was poor or no sourcing and egregious original research. Note also this original research warning from Vanamonde93. Bishonen | tålk 20:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC).

also do drafts count in topic ban? as its not mentioned in WP:TBAN JingJongPascal (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad you asked. Yes, the ban does apply to drafts. None of the examples given at WP:TBAN are drafts, right, but the ban covers all pages on Misplaced Pages. "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed"." And it covers "discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Misplaced Pages". If you want to work on drafts in the WP:ARBIPA area, you have to keep them off Misplaced Pages. I'll come back to a couple of other questions later. Bishonen | tålk 10:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC).
Garudam has been disrupting my page as we speak
and yet he gave me a edit warning.
Please do something, he did it without any consensus. JingJongPascal (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
? Sorry, but what "my page" is that? I don't see Garudam editing your userpage or your talkpage. The last 9 hours they seem to have been busy editing First battle of Eran, a page they created themselves. Also, JingJongPascal, I remind you that you're not supposed to discuss pages in the ARBIPA topic area anywhere on Misplaced Pages - not even on my page, except to ask questions about, or appeal, the topic ban itself. Is the above post part of your ban appeal? Bishonen | tålk 09:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC).
Yes it is, it is about the disruptive edits.
Garudam warned me of disruptive edits but he is the one doing it. I don't think I deserve a topic ban, see List of wars involving Magadha, before my topic ban he kept removing an section he's doing it now too without any consensus and then edit warned me. JingJongPascal (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
JingJongPascal, I'm not sure what you mean by saying Garudam "edit warned" you? Anyway, this complaint about another editor and what they did after you were T-banned doesn't look to me like it's related to an appeal of your ban; you have strayed from that on to general discussion of an ARBIPA article and of another user's editing there, which is not allowed. Also, they don't need consensus to make a bold edit (you also don't have consensus; it's just the two of you arguing on the talkpage). See WP:BOLD. If their edit is reverted, which has so far not happened, then they'd need consensus to put it back.
You'd much better focus on other areas now, and on showing you can edit well away from ARBIPA, which you're banned from. You have appealed to me now; I will not lift the ban; did you read the information about ban appeals in my ban notice? What you can do after appealing to me is described here. You can appeal either at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") or the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"). Or, theoretically, at the request for amendment ("ARCA"), but I wouldn't recommend that, as it's run by the Arbitration Committee which is glacially slow. You'd better choose between AE, where your appeal will be decided by uninvolved admins, and AN, where it will be decided by the community of editors. Take a look at the noticeboards to see how they function, and think carefully about which one you prefer. I have not imposed a limit for how soon you can appeal, but my advice would be to wait at least a few months, and to edit well and constructively in other areas while you wait, as that will give your appeal a better chance. Note also that you can freely edit all topics at our SISTER projects; you're only topic banned at the English Misplaced Pages. Ask if anything of this is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 14:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC).
look at my talk page , "November 2024".
You tbanned me for "disruptive edits" and "original research" could you provide evidence for disruptive edits. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
(uninvolved jaguar padding by...) JJP, may I suggest that you carefully and fully read Bishonen's post immediately above yours. Then read it again. Your response to it is a classic example of what is known on Misplaced Pages as I Didn't Hear That, and that behavior will absolutely, positively do you no good. Indeed, if you keep it up it will likely get you blocked for an extended period, if not indefinitely. Stop complaining about the other editor. Just stop. No matter how mad you are, no matter how upset you are, no matter how unfairly/unjustly you might feel you are being treated, just STOP. Now. My advice to you is to edit some other topic, or edit a Misplaced Pages in another language. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, JoJo, you're very right. It's all right for JingJongPascal to ask for examples of disruptive editing and original research, though, as those were some of my reasons for banning them. JingJong, here are some examples. (DE and OR can blend into each other, so some of the below items are examples of both.)
  • You added an extremely bad main source for your article List of wars involving Gujarat (later moved to Kingdom of Gujarat) here, only a few minutes before you submitted the draft to AfC. The source is A. K. Mozumdar's Chaulukyas of Gujarat. Or A. K. Majumdar, as you write it; perhaps both transcriptions are correct, I don't know, but it's clearly the same person. It's still very much used in the article. As a source for history, that's absurd. Our article, under the name A. K. Mozumdar, describes the writer as "an Indian American spiritual writer and teacher associated with the New Thought Movement in the United States." He may be an admirable writer in his field, I couldn't say, but he's obviously not remotely a historian, or a reliable source for history. This gives rise to concern over your competence to edit historical articles in this area.
  • Editing against consensus here. Note Remsense's edit summary.
  • Original research: this version of Indian Empire (now a disambiguation page). Compare Vanamonde93's warning.
  • Here, you change the area drastically in the infobox, are reverted, then change it again to something completely different. What is the article reader supposed to make of those wildly varying figures? You realise they can't see your edit summaries, I hope. Also, can you remember your source for this addition of an area with a surprisingly even number in another article?
  • This addition to List of largest empires is not in the cited source, at least I can't find it (and clearly the experienced editor TompaDompa couldn't either, as they reverted you).
  • Creating a multitude of non-viable and poorly sourced articles is also disruptive, as I have mentioned above.

December music

story · music · places

I agree with your post for Simon, - perhaps sign it or it looks as if I wrote it which I don't deserve ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I wrote it up for an e-mail, and then, when it turned out he didn't have wikimail, pasted it in as was. It does have an e-mail signature! Altogether an illustration that I shouldn't post when I'm half asleep. Bishonen | tålk 11:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC).
Listen today to the (new) Perplexities after Escher --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
On the heckelphone! Thanks, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 11:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC).
Listen today to Beethoven's 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the 2020 DYK set when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording with Antônio Meneses, because he was on my sad list this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I come to fix the cellist's name, with a 10-years-old DYK and new pics - look for red birds --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Today is a woman poet's centenary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your refreshing seasonal message! - Today it's another great woman, soprano Sigrid Kehl, and I found a 1963 Christmas Oratorio detail. 10 years earlier than that cycle, Bach wrote seven cantatas for the 1724 season, based on seven songs, - my focus this year. Expect three stories for the three days they celebrated in Leipzig ;) - Enjoy the season! Refreshment in the melting snow, and I picked icicles for a January image, bzzt ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Seeking assist on WP:ANI

Hey there. Needing urgent assist with this IP address in this ANI case, which has persisted with WP:ASPERSIONS and personal attacks. I for one believe such attitudes are simply WP:NOTHERE for contributing objectively on WP.

Seeking your kind attention. Thanks. hundenvonPG (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bishonen, this issue is being discussed in another user talk page already: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Cullen328 . I was first being attacked by this user as he accused me for being a disruptive person when I was just stating facts with citations from CTBUH. 155.69.184.1 (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, do take note that this is one of the many instances of WP:HOUNDING by said IP address, going against WP:CIVIL. 12:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC) hundenvonPG (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Instead of accusing the other Wiki editors, why are you still refusing to answer my questions on the main discussion page as of now? Aren't we supposed to discuss on the talk page? 155.69.184.1 (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Métis Nation British Columbia

I saw you'd blocked some of the IP's. Thanks for that. I've also semi-protected the page for a couple of weeks as this is ongoing. Cheers CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather. There was a note at WP:AIV. Nice IPv6 range, wasn't it? You may have noticed it had done nothing on Misplaced Pages other than persistently vandalizing that particular article. How's it going? It's pretty cold and dark here (Stockholm) this time of year, but I have a feeling it's probably seriously moreso where you are. Bishonen | tålk 16:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC).
They have been at that article for a while. It's not bad here (−25 °C (−13 °F)), warmer than normal and less snow than usual. We have polar night from 1 December to about 12 January. No sun for us. How cold is Stockholm at this time of year? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh.. now I'm ashamed to mention our paltry temperature. It's only -5° C. But there's a biting wind from the north! Bishonen | tålk 19:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC).
The wind is always a killer at subzero temperatures. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Revert

I'm sorry but I don't understand your revert here at all:

Is this asking to corroborate it with more reliable sources per WP:WIKIVOICE? Or is it referring to "Avoid stating opinions as facts."? You pointed out citing it alone in the edit summary is not sufficient . But it makes sense otherwise if there is no citation in article. You also said it is redundant, but I don't understand why? It's added in a section referring to conflicts and as a military leader. Noorullah (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss issues relating to the article at its talk page, Talk:Alauddin Khalji. However, while we are here, the description "brilliant military general" is not suitable for Misplaced Pages. See WP:PEACOCK and WP:WIKIVOICE. Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Please take it to article talk per Johnuniq. Bishonen | tålk 10:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC).

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Adoration of the Magi in the Snow (1563) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Continued hounding despite your warning

@Qalb alasid: has been following my edits for a while now. Last time he reverted my blanking of promotional content from the userpage of a self promotional SPA which led to you warning them for battle ground conduct as they did so only to provoke me now they have reverted my WP:BLAR of Hinduism in Belize ,Hinduism in Barbados ,Hinduism in Brunei and issued me a frivolous warning for disruptive editing . Additionally, they have also closed a merge discussion initiated by me on BAPS Shri Swaminarayan mandir (Robbinsville, New Jersey) and edited Swaminarayan Akshardham (Robbinsville, New Jersey) where I am one of the main contributors. There is a pattern of WP:FOLLOWING me here and seemingly oppose anything I do. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Ratnahastin. I agree Qalb's warning was pretty frivolous. If you don't like a change of an article to a redirect, Qalb alasid, it's easily reverted (as I see you did). Reverting is enough; no need to issue warnings to experienced users about something like that. If either of you feels strongly enough, your next step should be discussion on talk. For the rest of your examples, Ratnahastin, I don't really think the overall picture rises to harassment or hounding. Bishonen | tålk 14:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC).
Thank you, @Bishonen. @Ratnahastin - I am not following or hounding you – please assume good faith.
For the record, I have been involved in backlogged merge proposals since September 29, 2024. .
Regarding the 3 articles cleared, I found it a bit odd that these articles, which have been around for a few years, were cleared without discussion. The content within these articles were not merged into the redirects either. Blanking the article without rationale appears to be disruptive – why did you feel the need to do so? Perhaps you can continue that conversation on the respective article's talk page. As per WP:BLAR, "Illegitimate blanking of valid content without reason is considered vandalism, a form of disruptive editing. Other forms of blank-and-redirect, although not vandalism, are still undesirable."
Based on WP:Harassment, "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles," shows that I am acting within the rights as a user. In fact, the same policy also states, "Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor." Which leads me to ask, @Bishonen, is accusing someone of hounding and following assuming bad faith? Qalb alasid (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, gee. You're both assuming bad faith AFAIC. Why don't you just both try to avoid each other and dial down the reporting and complaining and (this is for you, Qalb alasid) PAG-quoting? Just a suggestion. Misplaced Pages is not about winning. Bishonen | tålk 21:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC).

Thank you for granting the selfblock

Made getting ready for my exams and finishing some major papers so much easier for my ADHD addled brain. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Very glad to hear it! Bishonen | tålk 04:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC).
Merry Christmas, young clown! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 04:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC).

Happy holidays!

Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025!  ♦ Maliner (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hope you are doing well

I am finding myself poking at this project more and more, these past few weeks, and wanted to wish you well for the holidays. You've always been one of the good ones, in my book. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Hammerpants, very nice to see you back! Bishzilla rotates at ya! Bishonen | tålk 22:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC).

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings

When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it."

(Text on page 17 illustrated in the frontispiece in Juliana Horatia Ewing's Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers, illustrated by Mary Wheelhouse, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Ekdalian (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ekdalian (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Bishonen, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
- Ratnahastin (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy Holidays


LukeEmily (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

LukeEmily (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Bishonen: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Misplaced Pages. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Abishe (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I was responding to an edit summary I saw from User:Doug Weller

User_talk:Daniel_Case#I_think_this_needs_full_protect. I was hitching up the dogs and I put a quick block on it, intending to give it a longer look when I returned. I didn't intend to add a second notice, just forgot to hit the correct toggle. I acted hastily in removing TPA, I'll concede. BusterD (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I looked at my admin stats and I'm still at 174 total blocks; I'm way inexperienced at that aspect of the work. Happy to be corrected by somebody who has been in deeper kimchi than I. BusterD (talk) 11:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Kimchi. Hehe. Bishonen | tålk 14:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC).