| Revision as of 02:10, 13 May 2009 editMZMcBride (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users190,597 edits →Correction?: +comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:18, 13 May 2009 edit undoBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,259 edits →Correction?: Any suggestions?Next edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| Hrmph. A crude edit summary is fine in small doses. Use one too much and you ruin its mystique. --] (]) 02:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | Hrmph. A crude edit summary is fine in small doses. Use one too much and you ruin its mystique. --] (]) 02:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :The mystique is perhaps not necessary, MZMcBride. Got any suggestions? What do you think of "Fuck off"? ] | ] 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC). | |||
Revision as of 20:18, 13 May 2009
Baronets naming dispute
Sorry to soil your clean talk page, but an request for arbitration has been initiated about this, and your name has appeared. Just thought you should know. John Vandenberg 08:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Bishonen | talk 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC).
Stockholm
Hello Bishonen,
I noticed you over at the Stockholm page and I was wondering if you had any ideas about my question on the talk page. I left that question there almost 2 months ago, but have recieved no response. I googled the term but the only hits were from wikipedia mirrors and veterinary articles about horses or cattle. I'm interested to know if this is a real term or if someone made it up. Tex (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Tex. I've replied on Talk:Stockholm, moving deviously from the concept of "wide lungs" to "green lungs", and forebearing, even, to say anything about the green lungs of your Spiderman-suited friend. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC).
- Ha! Do large reptile-like creatures have green lungs as well as green fire coming from their mouths? That's very interesting, although I'm sure the 'Zilla's lungs are both wide and green due to her...ah...girth (please don't eat me, 'Zilla, girth a good thing on mighty beasts). Thanks for your thoughts on the article. I can finally take it off my watchlist. Tex (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of removing the unsourced guesswork (sorry about the bluntness) and adding a relevant fact. Also sorry about my crappy "cite" work. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Correction?
You mean supporters, no? And the talk page only shows the level of hate that Everyking will put forth, so I doubt it really supports your argument in any kind of regard. Thankfully, Crats don't do what Everyking would do (merely count votes) so your argument definitely wont hold up. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- It definitely won't, will it? That's interesting. Are you suffering from some kind of hysteria, to be addressing me like that after I advise you to not—not—keep blathering against the opposers? Or are you trying to avoid the childishness of immediately doing what I asked you not to do, by posting on my page instead of on the RFA? Or, Machiavellian thought, are you deliberately making yourself look absurd in order to make Everyking look the better? Are you secretly on his side? Whichever it is, and, believe me, I don't really want to know, piss off my page and stay off. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC).
Hrmph. A crude edit summary is fine in small doses. Use one too much and you ruin its mystique. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- The mystique is perhaps not necessary, MZMcBride. Got any suggestions? What do you think of "Fuck off"? Bishonen | talk 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC).