Misplaced Pages

User talk:Bunchofgrapes: 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 04:08, 8 September 2006 editBunchofgrapes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,802 edits Hi hun← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:15, 21 July 2024 edit undoCycloneYoris (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers83,037 edits Notification: listing of Unreal Engine technology at WP:Redirects for discussion.Tag: Twinkle 
(776 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{not around|1=is lost behind the couch cushions|2=The poor schlub|3=time immemorial}}
'''This is ]' talk page. Click the little tab up there to leave me a new message.'''
]<sup>]</sup> 21:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)]]
----
Quote of the week:<br/>''I won't dignify Bunch of Grapes' ridiculous accusations of "chilling dissenting voices" with any description other than "stupid".'' --]


Am I the dead guy or one of the dogs? Back, I'd just be a troublemaker. &mdash;] (]) 21:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
----
<small>
''']''' &bull;
''']''' &bull;
''']''' &bull;
''']''' &bull;
''']''' &bull;
''']''' &bull;
''']''' &bull;
''']''' &bull;
''']''' &bull;
''']''' &bull;
''']''' &bull;
''']'''
</small>


*You can't be one of those dogs. They have legs. ] | ] 23:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC).
]
*My guess? The light of the dawn. - ]] 09:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
*:ooh, you're good. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
<br clear="all" />


==To spin the thread== == Welcome back ==
And Extraordinary Machine is making faithful edits? Do you ''see'' me fully reverting him? No. And the new thread I recently posted on ] suggests that we are decreasing the number of issues being held. Yet again, you are out to get me. You were told very clearly to leave me alone. If you bother me any further, I will open an RFC describing all your critical and intentional-stalkish behaviour. I ''decline'' the ban because I was about to make an edit reverting ''my''self anyway. Don't believe me? Go see. ] 21:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:This borders on a personal attack; please don't forget about your attack parole. You can't decline the ban; I am not out to get you but I am out to give EM a hand, since he is being so upstanding about not enforcing the RfAr remedy against you on a page he is involved with. Do I think Extraordinary Machine is making "faithful" edits? Yes. &mdash;] (]) 21:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::And that I'm not? Bias, and because you don't like me. Ban rejected. (But I do have nothing more to edit today. If I do within the next 48 hours though, too bad for you, and I'm opening a complaint about your intentional stalking. One way or another, you will ''leave me alone''.) ] 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::Also, you can't say that I'm being disruptive because I don't agree with his views; he's being disruptive for not agreeing with mine. It's not up to you to decide who's right and who's wrong, especially since he's introducing factual inaccuracy, but you wouldn't know; he's always making faithful edits, isn't he? ] 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:::From the little I have seen, yes, Extraordinary Machine ''is'' always making ''good-faithed'' edits, yes. Not all of us edit out of vengeance, you know. &mdash;] (]) 22:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with one of EM's views; lucky him. As a result, I'm going to change ] and will note as such on the talk page. At least this scratches away three of our arguments; three left. Progress, eh? I'd barely call this disruptive &mdash; more like advancement. At least the two of us can remedy issues faster than before. It's all part of the nice chain. Anyway, I could care less if you block this IP briefly. The library has some lovely new material that will withdraw the block immediately. I've also got to go downtown now, so enjoy your evening and treat yourself to some puffer fish (after all, it's not an insult according to the RFAr). =] ] 22:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::Edit out of vegenance on ]? Please think before you talk, because it'll make you look like you ''know'' what you're talking about. ] 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


] Welcome back all my friend to the show that never ends! We’re so glad you could attend - come inside, come inside. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
==Banned from this page==
:Hey, man. Was just thinking about you. How're you holding up? ] (]) 01:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hollow Wilerding is hereby banned from this user talkpage for a week, following the obnoxious posts above, which testify to HW's failure to grasp what an arbitration remedy is. Have you even read those remedies? Do you suppose it's up to you to keep right on shouting abuse and threats and announcing that you'll do as you please? That kind of behaviour was what the RFAR was about. I encourage all users to revert Hollow Wilerding on sight on this page and others she has been banned from. It is unfortunately difficult to block her, as usual with people who don't have the decency to edit logged in, but systematic reverts will do just as well, assuming Bunchofgrapes doesn't want to simply semiprotect his talkpage. And a warning: the way you're going at the ] page, you're heading for a ban from that too. Incidentally, don't even think about pestering me on my page. It's semiprotected. ] | ] 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC).
:Thanks, Bish. I took the liberty of recorded your ban at ]. By the way, I've got no compunctions about doing short-term anon-only blocks on the range. &mdash;] (]) 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::I don't have any compunction either, and this is one thing that's gotten better since January. Let's try that. Anons plus account creation blockecd, right? Say a couple of hours each time? It's a big range. And you'd better tell me exactly how to write the range in this case. ] | ] 23:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC).
:::64.231.0.0/16 I believe is the best that can be done; I was thinking of starting out with account creation allowed and seeing if her determination to evade extended to that degree. &mdash;] (]) 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


== EddieSegoura Ban Appeal ==
::::]--he/she is probably reading this page, so describing your plans in detail here is contraindicated. ] 00:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::Brad, we're well aware of it, thanks. It doesn't matter. ] | ] 00:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC).
::::::Also -- a total side point but a pedantic matter I just can't help exploring -- that's not what ] is actually about, though it is very frequently mis-cited in a similar manner. WP:BEANs is about ''not'' telling people ''not'' to do things that they wouldn't have thought about doing on their own. &mdash;] (]) 02:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks for the info. Bean fully rejected. ] 16:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


For your information, a discussion has been opened at ] regarding an issue you may be involved in. Your comments are invited. Thank you! For the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 01:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for intervening at ]. It's admins like you who make Misplaced Pages a disruption-free place and renew my faith in the whole policies/guidelines/dispute resolution "system". I'm sorry for all the fuss this has caused. ] 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I have a better idea, could I suggest we just dump and divert all dealings on this subject to ] who had so much good and wise advice on how I should have dealt with the problem. Then we may all learn from example ] | ] 16:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:::: Shh. Let sleeping dogs lie. Extraordinary Machine, you're welcome. &mdash;] (]) 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


== I appreciate your feed back ==


== Everyking's RFA ==
I appreciate your feed back ] 17:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi Bunch, it was great to see you edit today, especially as It was a ]. Hope you are here to stay awhile. ] (]) 18:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
== Flagging my anon edits as by me? ==


== Pardon? ==
Bunchofgrapes, I forgot to login before my last edit to Belton House ("re-wiki British..."). Is there any way I can mark that edit as by me? Thanks very much!
] 20:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:Nope. You could make a null edit (just add a space somewhere) and mention that it was you in your edit summary, though. &mdash;] (]) 20:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
::Raul has already reverted it. I can't say I see much point in the linking you've inserted several times, either. Please see ]. ] | ] 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC). PS, sorry, my mistake, I see Raul actually reverted the next edit along. But my point about context stands. ] | ] 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC).


Responding to your message on my ]: I have no idea what you're talking about. I changed my name from ''United Statesman'' weeks ago; I've sent no e-mails either. ]</sup></span>]] 23:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
==Mace==
I found my mace. ] | ] 10:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC).


==Request for help==
:I don't quite see how the thin, bright red lace-like covering over the shell of the seed of the ''Myristica fragrans'' can help here, but I'm happy for you. Are you baking? Who are you baking? Do you need cloves? Cloven hooves? (yes I'm semi-back now) ]<sup>]</sup> 11:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::Arf arf, KC, it's very good to have you back. I just bean 'em in the noggin with a whole nutmeg myself. Bish, you should have just let that clever and handsome ] do the talking. &mdash;] (]) 14:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Everybody's clever and handsome on the Intarweb. ] | ] 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC).
::::Everybody may be handsome, except for those crazy enough to post photos, but I'm not seeing everyone being clever. I have redacted a bit of your post just in case there is anybody around who is just ''that'' not clever. &mdash;] (]) 14:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


I am will shortly be posting to ] with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.
== FAC failed ==


===Request to WP:AN===
Hiya. I noticed in looking back at a couple of pages that had been on FAC, ] and ], that you had placed the failed notice after only five or six days. Star was surprising because ] was very obviously willing to continue working. Is it no longer two weeks? What's the criteria for deciding it's failed? ] 18:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
"I would like to take the article ] to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:
:Bunchofgrapes doesn't fail articles; just puts the template there - ] does :). ] 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::I had guessed as much, but Raul rarely replies when I post on his talk (*sob*) so I thought BoG might know the score. I find it very sketchy looking at it after a while--some closed after five days and others up five weeks. ] 18:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:Yeah, it takes some getting used to - after awhile you might see it as pretty accurate. Anyway, you can ask him to extend it a few days - he almost always does... ] 18:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


*]
::Leaving them up about five days if they haven't gathered much support is about the norm now; it's continually creeping down as traffic on FAC creeps up. Vancouver looks like a solid close; I'd be pretty surprised if he wouldn't give Star more time if asked. &mdash;] (]) 20:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
*]
*]
*]
*]


I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of ] who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").
:::"If they haven't gathered much support...". I hope that doesn't literally mean the word "support" has been placed in '''bold'''. Star had support in that it had a contributor working on it and a reviewer criticizing. ] 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Misplaced Pages, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". ] (]) 09:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Well it ''shouldn't'' mean that, but imagine youself plowing through the decision-making process on 30 or so FACs week after week and picture how fatigue might occassionally let one slip by. Would you like me to go ask Raul to relist it? I don't think I actually have any more sway there than you. &mdash;] (]) 21:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


== FAR notice ==
:::::No insult intended! I agree with you about workload--but that shouldn't be your problem (or Raul's or anybody's, ideally). I plow through the featured article reviews every day (which, is maybe 10 to 20% the workload) and the principle consideration is "is somebody working on this—is there ''a willing contributor at this moment''?". If there is, no close. I wasn't meaning to denigrate your work at all. I just wonder if we could be less hasty and have more people working. Raul removes 21 at once. Unless Raul is not actually a human being, there isn't a chance he looked at all of these closely. Frankly, I think this is bad for a process as important as FAC. ] 21:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


{{#if:|] has|I have}} nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. -- ''']''' (]) 02:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::It might not be scaling well. Nothing does. If Raul starting promoting a lot of articles that a lot of people disagreed with, I'd worry; as long as errors are on the early-delisting side, I'm not too concerned, since trying again a couple of weeks from now is no big deal, whereas once FAC'd, the de facto waiting time before you can realistically FARC is, what, six months or something? Also, unlike FARC, FAC is explicitly ''not'' so much supposed to be an article-improvement drive -- ideally the articles are brought up as a candidate already in tip-top shape. So the thing about there being a "willing contributor" doesn't apply as strongly. &mdash;] (]) 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
== File:Bishzilla spin.gif listed for deletion ==
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


== Eventualists rule! ==
::::::::De facto waiting time is three months (not that people wiki-lawyer about it). Anyhow, if you are hasty with one, you are hasty with the other. and just a few months later. This article should not have been promoted (at least in 2006). Not only was it incredibly underweight, but it went to the main page with obvious errors based on later additions. Now, easy to pull one out of a hundred...but if you pull out one, you're uncertain about the rest.
] :)]] ] (]) 04:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


==Notice of change==
::::::::And I am. I don't know--I just don't feel they're actually being looked at closely when 21 can be removed at once. Raul rarely even edit summaries when removing (promoting or removing?--I don't know, because he doesn't say). If it were, as you suggest, simply cruft being removed the page, I would agree it's not worrisome, but I don't have confidence it always is. ] 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a to the ] that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the ]. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through ]. Thank you. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
:I'm gonna go ahead and game the system with this reply, then. &mdash;] (]) 17:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
::Hehe, good job. Funny man. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 14:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


== Unreal Engine == ==Happy holidays..==


…from the evil twin and her baby hooligan gang. ] '']'' ] 15:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC).]
I noted in the talk page a few days ago that I was starting to lean towards an AfD. At the time, I was hoping that there'd end up being a consensus of sorts that, yes, the edits made are necessary to avoid copyvio and RS issues, but three separate users and/or IP address ranges have now reverted blindly back, including totally useless bits that appear to be there just to exactly copy the unrealwiki page (somewhat ironic in light of the copyvio issue), at which point I could continue to whittle down the article.
<gallery mode=packed heights=80px>
File:Bella Rose.jpg
File:A young seal at Donna Nook - geograph.org.uk - 845239.jpg
File:Panthera tigris altaica 19 - Buffalo Zoo.jpg
File:Juraparc 06-07-2013 - Buffalo and calf.jpg
File:Baby Giraffe at Kilimanjaro Safaris.JPG
File:Arct0040 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg
File:Baby elephants in an elephant sancuary 02.JPG
</gallery>


:Kawai! &mdash;] (]) 22:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
However, the end result would be a tiny, tiny stub - it essentially has no sources barring those wikis (for example, there's some information about UE2-based games on a non-Wiki, official Unreal age), and dealing with an AfD vote rather than an edit war of attrition seems more tractable. As such, an AfD is looking ever more atttractive. Thoughts? ] 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


== Global account ==
:If there are really no verifiable reliable sources on the topic, sure, an AfD is more than appropriate. In the meantime I have asked for some third-party admin help (blocking and/or protection, whatever they may think best) to deal with the edit war. &mdash;] (]) 20:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi Bunchofgrapes! As a ] I'm involved in the upcoming ] of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see ]). By looking at ], I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on ] and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my ]. Cheers, —]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 11:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
::I protected, if you want to go for an Afd it would be lovely, but with three or more people adding content it may end up right back where it is now. Try clue-whacking for a bit, see if they can read policy pages eh? ]<sup>]</sup> 20:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


== ok == ==Eddie again==
Bunchie, there's a new ban appeal by Eddie Segoura which looks to be going well. I'll wait for your opinion, if you have one, before I jump one way or the other. I was quite impressed by the stubborn disruptiveness of Eddie in the distant past, but they say people can change. Anyway, nobody knows more about it than you. ] &#124; ] 09:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC).
]
:I guess my comments from the 2009 appeal (which I did not actually oppose) still stand. I'm willing to believe there's a decent chance he won't be malicious, and if the community wants to put up with what a pain-in-the-ass he can be is even when he's being good, there's little reason not to give him another shot. A quick look at his edits as WikiBaseballFan actually have me wondering if he hasn't grown up some in the last six years, even. &mdash;] (]) 15:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
::So you don't you want to say that on AN, little Bunch? ] &#124; ] 16:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC).
:::OK, OK :-) &mdash;] (]) 16:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
:::: Little Bunch welcome in ] even though not editing! Feel free take up invisible residence! Discreet ingress and egress through catflap. ] ] 18:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC).


== ] ==
ok understandable. but i shall be vindicated. Thanks hun.] 02:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:Don't call me hun, please. Just join the conversation on ] and bring your sources. Thank you. &mdash;] (]) 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
i listed the sources on the article tahnks.] 02:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691988767 -->
:People have more questions. Like which source the Jane Austen info is from and how a plan in the 1830s could have involved ], built in 1851. Go over there and help out. &mdash;] (]) 02:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]


The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
there are several king's crosses. Plus, it's in her books. haven't you read them? I'd love to talk more, but I gotta run. Good night.] 03:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>Out of project scope.</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
==Hi hun==

? Why I didn't do an indef I don't know. Someone will, I guess. Wait, what am I saying? A sweet girl like that? They'll be run out of town if they do. ] | ] 03:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC).
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ], 22:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
:Yeah, it was good, but you forgot to invite her to reflect :-) Interesting evening I'm having here all-around. Getting trolled from one side and being told in no uncertain terms I'm trolling from another. &mdash;] (]) 03:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
::Yeah, I saw your vile slurs. Courtney's block is being wheel warred! But unintentionally, I think. Well, I ''did'' invite her to e-mail me about themes in Jane Austren's novels, won't that do? I'd be quite prepared to shorten the block if, against all expectation, she does have something, anything, to say about the invasion-related paranoia (O RLY?) in them, you know. If I don't hear from her, I guess it's AFD for the article. ] | ] 04:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC).
]
::I just trimmed it down to sourced stuff. Basically one para now. If that sticks, probably just merging that into the precursors section at ] is the way to go. Now what's this about a wheel war? &mdash;] (]) 04:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
<blockquote>Orphaned map.</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 19:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

==Please attribute or claim media you uploaded or restored: ]==

You uploaded or restored , ], but for various reasons did not add an {{tl|information}} block, or indicate your (user) name on the file description page. Media uploaded to Misplaced Pages needs information on the '''SPECIFIC''' authorship and source of files, to ensure that it complies with copyright laws in various jurisdictions.

If it's entirely your own work, '''please include {{tl|own}} in the relevant source field''', amend the {{tl|information}} added by a third party, '''ensuring that your user name (or name you want used for attribution) is clear in the author field''', and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant (if such a license is not already used). You should also add an <nowiki>|author=</nowiki> parameter to the license tag, to assist reviews and image patrollers. You can also add <code><nowiki>|claimed=yes</nowiki></code> and an <code><nowiki>|author=</nowiki></code>to the {{tl|media by uploader}} or {{tl|presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{tl|information}} where appropriate).

If it's not entirely your own work, then please update the source and authorship fields, so that they accurately reflect the source and authors of the original work(s), as well as the derivative you created. You should also not use a "self" license unless the work is entirely you own. Media that is incorrectly claimed as self or {{tl|own}}, will eventually be listed at ] or deleted, unless it's full status is entirely clear to other contributors, reviewers and image patrollers.

Whilst this notification, relates to a single media upload, it would also be appreciated if you could ensure that appropriate attribution exists for other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created .

It's okay to remove or strike this message once the issue has been resolved :).

] (]) 07:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

==Happy New Year==
Hi BOG, I just thought I’d drop by to wish you a prosperous New Year and say it would be nice to see a little more of you around the place. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 21:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
:Hi and thanks, Giano. Is everything all fixed around here, then, or are you all still slaving away for the glory of our "betters"? &mdash;] (]) 03:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
::Yep, everything’s fixed. The place is a positive Utopia, never been better - Jimbo asks me in for a weekly beer to sound out my views for advice. Glad to see you are still looking in. Have a great 2020. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 00:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

== Sicilian Baroque nominated for Featured Article Review ==

I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. -- ] (]) 00:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

== Featured article review for Restoration Spectacular ==

I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. -- ] (]) 00:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

== FAR for Durian ==

I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].<!--Template:FARMessage--> ] <sub> '']''</sub> 17:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 21#Unreal Engine technology}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <small>]</small> <sup>]</sup> 22:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:15, 21 July 2024

This user is lost behind the couch cushions. The poor schlub has not edited Misplaced Pages since time immemorial. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Bunch, are you lost to us forever? KillerChihuahua 21:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I the dead guy or one of the dogs? Back, I'd just be a troublemaker. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Welcome back

We Must Let the Show Go On

Welcome back all my friend to the show that never ends! We’re so glad you could attend - come inside, come inside. KillerChihuahua 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, man. Was just thinking about you. How're you holding up? DS (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

EddieSegoura Ban Appeal

For your information, a discussion has been opened at WP:AN#EddieSegoura Ban Appeal regarding an issue you may be involved in. Your comments are invited. Thank you! For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold 01:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


Everyking's RFA

Hi Bunch, it was great to see you edit today, especially as It was a wise and great edit. Hope you are here to stay awhile. Giano (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon?

Responding to your message on my talk page: I have no idea what you're talking about. I changed my name from United Statesman weeks ago; I've sent no e-mails either. B R U N S W I C K I A N 23:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Misplaced Pages, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Simon Byrne for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Bishzilla spin.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bishzilla spin.gif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILYs 08:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Eventualists rule!

Eventualists rule, Take a look :)

Djembayz (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and game the system with this reply, then. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hehe, good job. Funny man. MBisanz 14:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays..

…from the evil twin and her baby hooligan gang. darwinbish 15:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC).

Kawai! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account

Hi Bunchofgrapes! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Eddie again

Bunchie, there's a new ban appeal by Eddie Segoura here on AN which looks to be going well. I'll wait for your opinion, if you have one, before I jump one way or the other. I was quite impressed by the stubborn disruptiveness of Eddie in the distant past, but they say people can change. Anyway, nobody knows more about it than you. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC).

I guess my comments from the 2009 appeal (which I did not actually oppose) still stand. I'm willing to believe there's a decent chance he won't be malicious, and if the community wants to put up with what a pain-in-the-ass he can be is even when he's being good, there's little reason not to give him another shot. A quick look at his edits as WikiBaseballFan actually have me wondering if he hasn't grown up some in the last six years, even. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
So you don't you want to say that on AN, little Bunch? Bishonen | talk 16:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC).
OK, OK :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Little Bunch welcome in pocket even though not editing! Feel free take up invisible residence! Discreet ingress and egress through catflap. bishzilla ROARR!! 18:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC).

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Mona bisha.png

The file File:Mona bisha.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. XXN, 22:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Drury lane theatre map.svg

The file File:Drury lane theatre map.svg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob13 19:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Please attribute or claim media you uploaded or restored: File:Tulipface spin.gif

You uploaded or restored , File:Tulipface spin.gif, but for various reasons did not add an {{information}} block, or indicate your (user) name on the file description page. Media uploaded to Misplaced Pages needs information on the SPECIFIC authorship and source of files, to ensure that it complies with copyright laws in various jurisdictions.

If it's entirely your own work, please include {{own}} in the relevant source field, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, ensuring that your user name (or name you want used for attribution) is clear in the author field, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant (if such a license is not already used). You should also add an |author= parameter to the license tag, to assist reviews and image patrollers. You can also add |claimed=yes and an |author=to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

If it's not entirely your own work, then please update the source and authorship fields, so that they accurately reflect the source and authors of the original work(s), as well as the derivative you created. You should also not use a "self" license unless the work is entirely you own. Media that is incorrectly claimed as self or {{own}}, will eventually be listed at Files for Discussion or deleted, unless it's full status is entirely clear to other contributors, reviewers and image patrollers.

Whilst this notification, relates to a single media upload, it would also be appreciated if you could ensure that appropriate attribution exists for other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

It's okay to remove or strike this message once the issue has been resolved :).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi BOG, I just thought I’d drop by to wish you a prosperous New Year and say it would be nice to see a little more of you around the place. Giano (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanks, Giano. Is everything all fixed around here, then, or are you all still slaving away for the glory of our "betters"? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Yep, everything’s fixed. The place is a positive Utopia, never been better - Jimbo asks me in for a weekly beer to sound out my views for advice. Glad to see you are still looking in. Have a great 2020. Giano (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Sicilian Baroque nominated for Featured Article Review

I have nominated Sicilian Baroque for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review for Restoration Spectacular

I have nominated Restoration Spectacular for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

FAR for Durian

I have nominated Durian for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 17:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"Unreal Engine technology" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Unreal Engine technology has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 21 § Unreal Engine technology until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris 22:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories: