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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:04, 21 June 2006 editGeogre (talk | contribs)25,257 edits The measure of genius← Previous edit Revision as of 03:13, 22 June 2006 edit undoPoolGuy (talk | contribs)308 edits Please explain: Threat notedNext edit →
Line 221: Line 221:
:::PoolGuy, the reason I'm giving you a block warning for talkpage harassment is simply the look of BH's page history tab. I hope you took a look at it, as I suggested. I'm sorry if you feel this is unfair, but I stand by it. Look: your warnings aren't vandalism warnings (and thank you for that, as they shouldn't be). They're about civility and personal attacks, a field that is absolutely notorious for being subjective and debatable, so they're by no means automatically "valid warnings" even though you posted them in good faith. Please take a look at the talkpage of ] if you want to see how problematic the whole thing is considered to be. There's a lot of food for thought on that page. If you'd rather insist on the (ever-changing and highly contested) letter of the the law, I think you will still agree that a sentence formulated like this is no iron-clad rule: "The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors." They are '''generally''' (=not under all circumstances) prohibited from removing warnings, '''especially''' where the intention is to mislead'. "Generally" means "not always", and "especially" again emphasizes "not always". Personally, I find the most natural reading, of the "intention to mislead" bit to be that it applies to anonymous silly-kid vandals removing ''incontestable and self-evidently true'' warnings about ''vandalism''--you know, '''not''' warnings about being in somebody's (inevitably subjective) opinion incivil, but warnings about inserting "RYAN IS SO GAY LOLZ" on article pages. Anyway, there is nothing ironclad about the rule you quote, it's rather formulated as an encouragement to use common sense, which I would again exhort you to heed. ] | ] 14:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC). :::PoolGuy, the reason I'm giving you a block warning for talkpage harassment is simply the look of BH's page history tab. I hope you took a look at it, as I suggested. I'm sorry if you feel this is unfair, but I stand by it. Look: your warnings aren't vandalism warnings (and thank you for that, as they shouldn't be). They're about civility and personal attacks, a field that is absolutely notorious for being subjective and debatable, so they're by no means automatically "valid warnings" even though you posted them in good faith. Please take a look at the talkpage of ] if you want to see how problematic the whole thing is considered to be. There's a lot of food for thought on that page. If you'd rather insist on the (ever-changing and highly contested) letter of the the law, I think you will still agree that a sentence formulated like this is no iron-clad rule: "The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors." They are '''generally''' (=not under all circumstances) prohibited from removing warnings, '''especially''' where the intention is to mislead'. "Generally" means "not always", and "especially" again emphasizes "not always". Personally, I find the most natural reading, of the "intention to mislead" bit to be that it applies to anonymous silly-kid vandals removing ''incontestable and self-evidently true'' warnings about ''vandalism''--you know, '''not''' warnings about being in somebody's (inevitably subjective) opinion incivil, but warnings about inserting "RYAN IS SO GAY LOLZ" on article pages. Anyway, there is nothing ironclad about the rule you quote, it's rather formulated as an encouragement to use common sense, which I would again exhort you to heed. ] | ] 14:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC).
::::P. S. I have added on your RFAr workshop page. ] | ] 14:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC). ::::P. S. I have added on your RFAr workshop page. ] | ] 14:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC).

:::::I am extremely disappointed in your statements. In short, a user attacked me, I felt attacked, no Admin took action, I placed tags expressing what I thought was valid and other Admins even agreed with. The user and an Admin removed the tags saying that the warnings are not justified. I was attacked twice more with no Admin action. I try to warn again, with the same response, Admin support, but the user and Admin still claim it is not justified and basically say I can be called a d!ck and told to get a life all they want. Now you come in to threaten blocking me because of your confusion regarding an official wikipedia policy. You don't like how his talk page history looks and you conveniently ignore all of the context surrounding the user's actions. If you ignore it, I ignore it, and another Admin encourages it, this user will do it again... disappointing.

:::::While I am disappointed, I will leave it be, but if I am attacked again, I will not ignore it, and I will post a tag again, and I will await you blocking me because I was attacked. That has no common sense, but I will go along with it since you can block me and I am now told that the policy is not iron-clad but simply a policy developed by concensus that Admins can ignore at will.

:::::Since you have told me warnings can be removed, I will remove the warnings against me. Thanks.

:::::PS, I also think your post to my RfAr was in extremely poor form, because it has absolutely no relevance to what it was about. It looks like you are somehow just trying to smear me like Admin Nlu. Thanks for your help. ] 03:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


==]'s ]== ==]'s ]==

Revision as of 03:13, 22 June 2006

Please post at the foot of the page!

Moods

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16



Wikimood


Belton House

Thank you all for your kind copy-edits and attacks on my foot-note system, yes it is a pity there are only four ref books (actually realy three, as one was only something unconnected) which will cause some-one to comment on FAC: "not enough references". While I appreciate yoor efforts (Paul - I can't actually see what you have done!) could I just point out the page is nt in fact finished, it has yet to have its section titled "Abdication and the broken heart" This will be a very moving and poignant section in which Lord Brownlow drives the Duchess of Windsor away from Belton and the King to France, with her soft tears echoing in his heart! Namely he has a broken heart because he has just realised he has backed the wrong side and knows he is about to be hacked up by the new Queen, who was at that time not a cuddly old granny, but when thwarted, a very unpleaseant piece of work. So you see there is a lot of murder and mayhem yet to come in this exiting page. Oh, and yes Ok Kinsman! hahahah very funny, you lot should be on TV! Giano | talk 09:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Efforts, is it? OK, copyedit it yourself. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC).
Well if you are going to be like that!....I shall shortly be going to Japan and never ever ever returning! - so there! Giano | talk 09:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You think you're Queen Elizabeth or something? Bishonen | talk 09:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC).
No, but I wish could could chop someone's head off - jusyt look at this Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Neo-Renaissance Ghirlandajo and I have been working on it for ages, it is far from finished, but may have been an Fa one day, and suddenly look...........bloody cheek! You wopuld think they could mention it to two obvious primary authors first! Giano | talk 10:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
So very nice to see that peer review is now being taken over by a javascript program! It's about time! Human beings are only a hair's breadth from monkeys, you know: would you trust a chimp to give feedback on your writing? No! Give me pure, sterile code any day. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought that was nice, too. People are talking to the script. "Please, ScriptMaster, accept these changes as a token of our esteem." It's absolutely flippin' nuts. (And, with compromise, we find ourselves compromised.) Geogre 17:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean javascript? who made those dumb comments? and how do I ind out who put it there, I won't be insulted by a robot, No I wil not. Giano | talk 18:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't cope with this, my life is in ruins, I go to very expensive bookshops buy out of print book thus depriving my children of food and education. Sit up in bed reading them half the night (thus depriving my wife of tea bags or whatever) then write my beautiful pages - for what?.......A fucking robot to read. No, you lot do not exist you are all figments of my imagination. OK my first dry week-end is about to end, I'm off for a few drinks teabag the wife and beat the kids! Giano | talk 18:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
And then little USA tied Italy in soccer, and you guys were trying to win the approval of a robot. Oh, I'm with Bunchofgrapes: there is something incalculably lovely about a javascript robot giving peer review notes. It's exactly where a certain segment of Misplaced Pages wants to go: potato mashers and sieves and Procrustean beds -- things that can't be argued because they don't need reading because they're just filling out forms in a particular way. Geogre 21:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Giano my edits are invisible and can only be seen using special browser code. They all make fun of Italian football and your manhood. By the way I've sent copies of the code to all your female admirers Bish, Freply, every women in Japan … and several others. Regards Paul August 15:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that Giano can't teabag? (I heard the term in a John Waters film, and it referred specifically to doing a particular thing while wearing Y-front briefs. I wonder if I should put a "disputed" tag on the page?) Geogre 17:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No Giano can't teabag, and Y-front briefs are surely only worn by nerdy Brits whose parents hate them by giving them daft names. As for the code Paul, I'm sure there is a Lady in Japan waiting just for you, would you like me to notify her of your existence? - NO!, I thought not. So you know what you can do with your code - don't you? Is it the fact you are going to loose to us in the footie realy hurts? - You surely don't immagine I would rub it in and mention it at every opportunity for the next four years do you? Giano | talk 18:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Geogre, to know what I'm "saying", you will have to see if Bish will loan you the code. And no, there is absolutely no relationship between the size of my edits, or the need for a magnifying glass, and Giano's manhood — none whatsoever. Paul August 19:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't even do Sodoku, so I have no hope of spotting the number patterns in a reference section. (The real reason I don't like footnotes: I'm innumerate!) Geogre 03:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I think Paul, like poor dear BoG you are becoming exitable, and should calm down, it is only natural that you should need a magnifying glass - self examination is very important in those over 50, I was only reading a very interesting poster in the doctor's waiting room the other day. You Brit's all have an (understandable) obsession with size, it must be very troubling for you all, but apparently it does not matter in the least (if you beleive that you will beleive anything). Now off you go to bed with a nice cup of cocoa. Giano | talk 20:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Cup of tea, I think you mean... And as for Italy's um, ... showing against USA. I'm flabbergasted. What went wrong? Perhaps they should have had you on the team after all? I hear you have the balls... ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It was an ugly game all the way around, but the USA did better than I expected. There was a huge difference in the game, in the US, depending upon whether you listened to satellite radio with broadcasters who follow all soccer all the time or the stupid TV people who appeared to think it was a baseball game. To say that they were out of their depth was an understatement. While radio complained about ticky fouls getting called early, they thought the redcard was well deserved (an elbow to the eyesocket of the guy who just scored on you). The TV people thought that there weren't any fouls being called and that all the yellow and red cards were just the refs messing things up. American television: the next best thing to living in a cave with your ears filled with mud. Geogre 03:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The inept ABC announcers liked the eye-gouging red-card (and were impressed that the ref saw it, since it was pretty quick) and they also liked the offsides call on the goal, the one that had the US coach in near-hysterics. They didn't like any of the sliding-tackle red- or yellow- cards. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm so pleased the poor American people all been given this encouragement by the kindly Italian team, what magnamanitude, I weep with pride. Meantime!.. my beautiful page - what happened overnight? - It's bad enough having to add these distracting little numbers to every verb, bit now the cite police want to fight over their bloody form - it's enough to make a ELC's cat weep. I've half a mind not to finish it properly, but add another 5000 words on the beautiful Duchess and the treacherous Lord instead Giano | talk 08:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
No, Giano, you continue to do the writing, and let us little minds follow behind looking for hobgoblins. Those who can do — those who can't (like me), niggle about with citation style. As for the game of footsie, we Yanks have a saying: "a tie is like kissing your sister". Paul August 14:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Paul - Oh dear how can I explain this, you seem a little confused - footie is a game where one kicks a ball about a field with lots of other men, footsie is an altogether different game, played likewise with the feet, but discretly under a dining room table with another man's wife. Perhaps this could be one of the problems Americans have understanding the game of "footie! - More seriously I am almost (but not quite finished now) - I wasn't refering to you as cite police, but whoever the anon was, I am now confused though, am I supposed to be putting (Jones 367) or etc. Giano | talk 14:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for rolling back the person who "pestered" me on my talk page. :) Extraordinary Machine 22:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. A real nogoodnik IP, that — a school, probably. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Er...

File:Roy Lichtenstein House I.jpg
YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT THIS HOUSE; THIS HOUSE IS LOOKING AT YOU.

Er, Jobjörn? Did you click on my links on WP:ANI? Here's a couple more. Many similar threads have been archived. Bishonen | talk 23:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

Heh, no, I didn't, actually. I was (for some now lost reason) in a hurry and just thought I should comment on it. Thank you for clarifying :) Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 00:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Your talk page is crazy by the way. Kittens and italian flags everywhere. wooah. overwhelming. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have gotten prizes for Craziest Talkpage! But the credit goes entirely to my... friends. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC).
It deserves them. I'm almost willing to say it's worthy of an inclusion in the article on Surrealism... however, something tells me that wouldn't be appreciated. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 00:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, no self-references. Bishonen | talk 00:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC).
Exactly. Now I must be off to find an obscure image to add to your nonsensical talk page, accompanying our conversation appropriately. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 01:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Scary image added. My work here is done. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 01:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It's the Lone Ranger's house on Tonto! Geogre 03:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that didn't work. According to Misplaced Pages, a hill in Stockholm is a Japanese dagger. Geogre 03:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The photo does not do this sculpture justice - it follows you around the sculture park. I recommend lunch sitting beside the large central circular fountain. One of my favourite places in D.C. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate it when sculptures follow me around. I always end up looking even more physically ugly when a Rodin is standing behind me, looking thoughtful or engaging in public displays of affection. I was tremendously fond of the small pond around 80th St. E. in Central Park. From there, you could see the two redtail hawks perching and pooping on rich people's apartments. Geogre 14:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

TM

It's time you start taking your job as an admin seriously, "Pretty boy."

Peterklutz

<sigh> Someone's mantra appears to be a series of enraged expletives. You'll never reach enlightenment through POV forks or edit warring, I'm sure. Geogre 11:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A hairy article I like

I just wrote Genius (literature), and I like what I done (which no one will know), because I synthesized a large amount of obscure stuff. My reference said one thing (one approach to the subject, and a good 'un), and I synthesized with what I know, and no one will know how rare that was. Anyway, it's good, but I'm afraid that it's about 55 miles above anyone's head but yours. Geogre 14:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And, since it had been red, I did afflatus. I was a flautist in 4th grade, but I haven't had afflatus since I started taking charcoal pills. Geogre 03:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Israel shamir

I see that you blocked RhinoRick as a sock of Israel shamir. This was probably unfair, since RhinoRick is most likely a different person named Richard Wilcox. See here. --Denis Diderot 15:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Two red links for you

  1. Tanto, Stockholm that isn't a knife. (I made Tanto a dab.)
  2. Swedo-Finnish Modernists ("A group of significant poets in Finland writing in Sweding during and shortly after World War I....")

Geogre 12:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Edith Södergran has a long article on sv (and as far as I can judge from a quick look a good one with actual references). It may be worth translating. Tanto or Tantolunden is a park on Södermalm. It's named after a person, Hans Tanto or Danto, who owned a plot there in the 17th century. It is also mentioned a couple of times in songs by Bellman. (A webpage on Tanto) Tupsharru 12:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you want more, eh? Fine: among the Swedo-Finnish Modernists listed in the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics are:

  1. Edith Södergran
  2. Hagar Olsson
  3. Elmer Diktonius
  4. Gunnar Björling
  5. Rabbe Enckell
  6. Henry Parland,

and these people published in Ultra and Quosego. Their influence "can be seen in Sweden, particularly in the leading poetic modernist Gunnar Ekelöf, and in the fyrtiotalisterna (q.v.)." I don't think I'll vide at this time. Geogre 12:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Copyedits

Thanks. It is almost finished it just needs a hard prune, and re-write of the lead, It'll be a waste of time to copy-edit properly before then, as you know how I change things about, I've already hived a huge section off into a page of its own. I'm not happy with it at the moment, it's lacking an architectural essence to bring it together (don't worry, I know what I mean). Love Giano | talk 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't think there is much more to say about such a small house, but let me sleep on the new lead! What d'you think? Truth! Giano | talk 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Too long! Sort of... I don't know, a tad heavy? Not sunkissed? Bishonen | talk 22:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC).
Mmmmmm I'm not happy with it either, I probably would vote for it on FAC, but only because I wrote it! Problem is people don't like sunkissed, I've shortened it by shunting the beautiful Duchess and the strong limbed aristo off to a "royal watcher's" delight of their own (even the wretched man's name makes me wince, his parents must have loathed him on sight), I'll have another drastic prune. Then of course we have the cite v footnote fiasco (sorry I know you hate that word) I think the (Smith, 245) method is distracting, but the little numbers method tempt people to click away in exited anticipation, they should be reserved for thrilling and gossipy peices of information that are a little off subject, but will entertain or enlighten the reader - I jave a couple of those, but should they be muddled up with all the fact citing - poor dear Agatha Christe never had these problems with writing her exiting books. I can see the page's problems just not quite get my mind arownd them. Anyhow I must do some proper work. Adieu. Giano | talk 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Idiot, that was my opinion of the lead section. I thought that was what we were talking about! Bishonen | talk 13:26, 20 June 2006

(UTC).

Happy birthday, Bishonen!

It's a birthday bug! (Don't anyone get "butterfly.jpg": it's obscene.)
File:Careymusic.jpg
Enjoy this stirring performance from the Carey Baptist Grammar School band on your birthday, Bish! Bunchofgrapes
Hope you found a pot of gold on your birthday!MONGO

]

Happy Birthday. A summer baby - how sweet. I of course was born in the winter! Giano
You guys are so sweet! Please join the salon, pull up a chair, help yourselves! La précieuse ridicule.

Still as cute and lithe as ever, and a little more wise. Happy birthday! (And Jonathan Swift used to read from Job 50 on his birthdays.) Have a butterfly! Geogre 02:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Chortle. Thank you, dear Geogre. Everyone's lithe on the Internet! Bishonen | talk 13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC).
A GIFT for your birthday! (I didn't know what to get you - this one is a cathedral, I hope you like it!) KillerChihuahua 09:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Aw, Puppy, how did you know I always wanted one! Bishonen | talk 10:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

When too many trolls turn up at the salon, bus them out! ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday. You must be pleased to finally be old enough to drink! (KIDDING, I expect our fair Bishie is a LITTLE older than that, but a gentleman never asks... ahem... and neither do I!)++Lar: t/c 13:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know about old enough to drink, Lar. "Highschooler" and "immature" are the favorite epithets that infuriated tro... eh, unhappy users, throw at me. I'm not even sure I'm old enough to ride in a bus that psychedelic. And for your other question: ARN. Bishonen | talk 13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC).
File:Gertjonnys-large.jpg
Swedish musical superstars Gert Jonnys have turned up to celebrate your birthday. Tupsharru 15:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC).....Que???..C'mon they are a spoof aren't they?.. they are aren't they? Giano. Studying the article... apparently, they have an internet cult following. "The members also have day jobs." :-) Bishonen....Probably a good idea Giano
They're all bozos on that bus!. Geogre 13:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Random Firesign Theater references are ALWAYS a good thing... so I guess I'll respond with Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right... ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Jesus Just Left Chicago and I'm Waitin' on the Bus. (Yeah, a ZZTop reference, but a really old one.) Wasn't there a bus with a troll on it in the last episode of The Prisoner? Geogre 19:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
...filled with whatever marine product you prefer!
File:Sushi4.jpg
Perhaps this is a more toothsome presentation after all. Have a happy and surreal birthday!! FreplySpang 14:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Happy B1FFday Bish'! How about a celebratory talk page archive? It's huge. --GraemeL 15:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What can I tell you, my friends are verbose. I'll try, but archiving seems to encourage them! Bishonen | talk 15:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC).
A barren page just seems to call out for scribbles, doesn't it? And further, it is better to have verbose friends than none at all. (My talk page seems to suffer the same problem as yours, my friends are always on about how it needs archiving) ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! Raul654 15:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

File:Scary pumpkin.jpg
This should scare away the eleven-year-old trolls! Happy birthday Bishonen! -- getcrunk ? 18:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh no.. you must take Camilla with you, Your Majesty! -- getcrunk ? 18:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks crowded enough already, so I'll just give a *hug* in place of another image. Happy birthday!!! - Corbin 19:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, Bishie, you're aiding and abetting mopery and dopery, delinquency of the spaceways, etc... Image:Gertjonnys-large.jpg is copyright (If I looked the way they do I wouldn't want my picture widely circulated, I must say, is that a chest wig I spot on one???) , thus fair use applies, thus not eligible for talk pages, but your enormous and rabid fan club won't let niceties like that stop them! ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Enormous and rabid???? I am neither, and I resent the personal insunuation. 1) I had my shots and 2) I'm not enormous! I'm little! So I can't fit into the jeans I wore when I was 17, that's not the same as enormous!. And don't even try to pretend this wasn't aimed at me. SFAIK, I'm the only dog posting here in the salon. Hrmph. KillerChihuahua 21:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Settle down your yappiness. It's the size of the club, not the sizes of the individual fans, for which enormous is the correct appelation. Most of us can't fit in the jeans we wore when we were seventeen (assuming we're at least 18), foam covered or no, but that's besides the point... And for the record any mammal can be rabid. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but um, Bunch is a cluster of ... let me rephrase. We're not all mammals here. KillerChihuahua 23:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It takes a mighty dose of rabies to make a Ge-ogre. I am a figure of great gravity, these days, as the earth seems to love me more and more and attract me ever more powerfully. Geogre 03:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Another cake from me. Enough for everbody I think. Happy Birthday. Paul August 21:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, BIG CAKE! Bishonen | talk 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

I hope it's for sharing. Happy birthday! Sam Korn 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh! Dearest Sam! If the ArbCom wasn't already in my pocket, you could have the WHOLE DELICIOUS THING! Bishonen | talk 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC).
Season's greetings, from me! El_C 09:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Please explain

Hi, would you please tell me why it is ok for Bonafide.hustla to remove warnings from his talk page but for me it is not ok . If it is ok to remove warnings why is it not a violation of WP:VANDAL?

"Talk page vandalism
Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors."

I hope you can see the contradiction here. Additionally, if the warnings are justified, then what makes them being posted by me any less valid then an Admin posting them? I was personally attacked by a user in an RfA and no Admin took any action. In an effort to prevent additional attacks, I placed the warning template prepared by the Misplaced Pages Community. Please note the hypocrisy, because if an Admin was attacked and their warning was removed twice, they would have blocked this user. I look forward to all this being cleared up, because they tags are valid, and from as far as I can see on the VANDAL policy page, they should remain because deleting them simply serves to mislead other editors. Do I have this wrong? If I don't I would appreciate if you would put them back because right now this user mistakingly thinks their attack posts to me are just fine. The first time they personally attacked me an Admin removed the warnings despite another Admin saying they were justifiable. Perhaps that is why they attacked me again and again. Thank you. PoolGuy 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, PoolGuy, I understand it's confusing. That text you quote isn't in any of the pages you link to — I'm not sure where it comes from. Is it Misplaced Pages:Removing warnings? If so, or in any case, please see the top of that page, to see that the whole issue is contested and contradictory. See all those links to policy pages, and especially the comments on them? Also please note that the bit you quote has in the past said "which they are generally discouraged from removing" —discouraged, not prohibited — and right now actually says "discouraged/prohibited"! The page changes rapidly, it's only a proposal: not a policy or guideline. Anyway. The central point for you to be concerned with, I suggest, isn't really whether BH's behavior is proper, but whether yours is. That's the only thing you have control over and for that, I might refer you to Misplaced Pages:Talk pages#Etiquette (a guideline): "...However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings." In the final analysis, PoolGuy, please just use common sense. Misplaced Pages is not a system of law. Take a look at the history tab for BH's talkpage. Surely you can see the guy's being harassed, and by whom? Please rethink your role in this. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC).
Thank you for trying to clear it up. Perhaps my comments will assist in making this clear for us both. First, the quoted section I used was from the official Misplaced Pages policy of WP:VANDAL. It is fourth from the bottom of WP:VANDAL#Types_of_vandalism. In this policy the key phrase appears to be "remove and archive comments". The conjunction used stipulates that two actions are generally permitted, the removal 'and' the archiving. It is not the removal 'or' the archiving. In this instance there is removal without any archiving, which on its face appears contrary to the spirit of the section.
Second, "in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing" the section is modified with a more stringent criteria. The higher criteria appears because the removal of warnings serves to mislead others, and the removal then constitutes vandalism.
Third, while you have tried to reference the proposed Misplaced Pages:Removing_warnings, by my read you have even mischaracterized its intent. I understand that reaching concensus is still underway with that proposed policy, however its spirit mirrors what is actual official policy in WP:VANDAL. Please read this quote from the page.
"Removing warnings
Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism. However, after a reasonable time has elapsed, archiving one's talk page, including the vandal warning, is acceptable. Editors may be subject to a minor block for archiving prematurely so as to hide warnings."
It clearly proposes that removing the warnings is vandalism. It goes on to suggest there are some instances where archival would be acceptable. In this case we are dealing with a user who is simply deleting, not archiving. It goes on to state:

"Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism. It is generally acceptable to remove misplaced vandalism tags, as long as the reasoning is solid."

This part of the proposal indicates if the tags are misplaced, then with established reasoning, the tags can be removed.
Bonafide.hustla has not provided solid reasoning, nor have the comments been archived. Based upon the spirit of both WP:VANDAL and Misplaced Pages:Removing_warnings, this is the action of vandalism.
I am disappointed that you are suggesting that I am edit warring. First and foremost, Bonafide.hustla is the one who found targeted and personally attacked me without me ever talking to him. I am the one who has been pursued, and would sincerely appreciate if an Admin would actually do something to discourage his behavior. Bonafide.hustla personally attacked me , I placed an NPA tag on their talk page which was subsequently removed by an Admin . (As an aside, this Admin has been pursuing me and taking baseless administrative action against me since March. They follow me where I post, and try to influence other Admins to work against me. The RfA that they started against me is about to conclude and the ArbCom has resoundingly shown that I truly did not not violate policy warranting their Administrative pursuit. The Admin has continued to pursue me and their actions are the underlying cause for Bonafide.hustla attacking me initially then continuing to attack me.) I attempted to restore the tag , however the Admin continued to remove it despite support from another Admin relative to its validity . I would like to state that the action of this Admin has caused this user to think that it is perfectly alright to personally attack me. In fact, after this, they inserted themself into my RfA despite their only interaction with me was to personally attack me. When I refuted their evidence in the RfA they attack me again and again in an RfA, and no Admin assists with warning this user. Considering the lack of Admin support, and even encouragement, I hope you can appreciate why I must tag this user for their violations.
Your implication that I am edit warring would suggest that I have simply been adding tags and not engaging in any dialogue. I have initiated and participated in discussion attempting to get additional support regarding this users attacks on me . In each of these instances where this has advanced the Admin in question has tried to turn other Admins against me, and the result has remained that there has been support for the tags placement. The only thing that is missing is an Admin actually taking action to warn Bonafide.hustla that their comments are not appropriate for Misplaced Pages.
You suggest that since Bonafide.hustla has obviously read the warnings, that is sufficient. I don't agree. On ANI Bonafide.hustla states that he thinks the tags are not justified. Your action of removing my valid tags , even after another Admin warned him about his vandalism will only serve to make Bonafide.hustla think it is ok to continue to attack me and other users. I ask that you appreciate the history of this, read and understand the spirit of WP:VANDAL#Types_of_vandalism and restore the tags and explain to Bonafide.hustla whay he should not attack other users. I must stress that your removal of those tags implies to Bonafide.hustla that they are invalid, and he is free to continue attacking me. Your discussion with me about my action is fine, but removing valid tags completely undermines what Bonafide.hustla should learn.
I understand that you think I should be responsible for myself and I believe that is what I have to do. Absent action from Admins (and even their pursuit of me and facilitation of this user personally attacking me) I must act to enforce Misplaced Pages policy (without authority to block I can only post). I would really appreciate it if you would do so in your role as an Admin, rather than threatening to block me (to me it seems absurd that as the one who was attacked the only threat of block comes to me). Your assistance would truly help. Thank you. PoolGuy 05:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
PoolGuy, the reason I'm giving you a block warning for talkpage harassment is simply the look of BH's page history tab. I hope you took a look at it, as I suggested. I'm sorry if you feel this is unfair, but I stand by it. Look: your warnings aren't vandalism warnings (and thank you for that, as they shouldn't be). They're about civility and personal attacks, a field that is absolutely notorious for being subjective and debatable, so they're by no means automatically "valid warnings" even though you posted them in good faith. Please take a look at the talkpage of WP:VANDAL if you want to see how problematic the whole thing is considered to be. There's a lot of food for thought on that page. If you'd rather insist on the (ever-changing and highly contested) letter of the the law, I think you will still agree that a sentence formulated like this is no iron-clad rule: "The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors." They are generally (=not under all circumstances) prohibited from removing warnings, especially where the intention is to mislead'. "Generally" means "not always", and "especially" again emphasizes "not always". Personally, I find the most natural reading, of the "intention to mislead" bit to be that it applies to anonymous silly-kid vandals removing incontestable and self-evidently true warnings about vandalism--you know, not warnings about being in somebody's (inevitably subjective) opinion incivil, but warnings about inserting "RYAN IS SO GAY LOLZ" on article pages. Anyway, there is nothing ironclad about the rule you quote, it's rather formulated as an encouragement to use common sense, which I would again exhort you to heed. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC).
P. S. I have added a comment on your RFAr workshop page. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC).
I am extremely disappointed in your statements. In short, a user attacked me, I felt attacked, no Admin took action, I placed tags expressing what I thought was valid and other Admins even agreed with. The user and an Admin removed the tags saying that the warnings are not justified. I was attacked twice more with no Admin action. I try to warn again, with the same response, Admin support, but the user and Admin still claim it is not justified and basically say I can be called a d!ck and told to get a life all they want. Now you come in to threaten blocking me because of your confusion regarding an official wikipedia policy. You don't like how his talk page history looks and you conveniently ignore all of the context surrounding the user's actions. If you ignore it, I ignore it, and another Admin encourages it, this user will do it again... disappointing.
While I am disappointed, I will leave it be, but if I am attacked again, I will not ignore it, and I will post a tag again, and I will await you blocking me because I was attacked. That has no common sense, but I will go along with it since you can block me and I am now told that the policy is not iron-clad but simply a policy developed by concensus that Admins can ignore at will.
Since you have told me warnings can be removed, I will remove the warnings against me. Thanks.
PS, I also think your post to my RfAr was in extremely poor form, because it has absolutely no relevance to what it was about. It looks like you are somehow just trying to smear me like Admin Nlu. Thanks for your help. PoolGuy 03:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:His excellency's talk page

Bishonen, would you consider counseling User:His excellency to remove the remaining personal attacks from his talk page, or removing them yourself? I don't mind him quoting me (though diffs are always helpful), but his section title is personalized, inflammatory, unsupported by the material contained in this section, and, most germanely to this discussion false. Other false claims, such as the allegation of homosexuality, also remain. I removed one section, but he reverted it. Block or no block, Misplaced Pages should not provide a platform for false and malicious claims.Timothy Usher 00:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you're OK with the section itself — as you say, it's almost wholly made up of quotes from you — you mean will I counsel His Excellency to remove the heading "My charge that Timothy Usher is in fact a bigot", right? (Or remove it myself.) I'm afraid I won't. Sorry. You speak of that heading as if it said "Timothy Usher is in fact a bigot"; it doesn't, and I think the distinction matters. His E is discussing Tom Harrison's block reason — stating his case against it, defending himself against it, arguing that he shouldn't have been blocked for it. That's what blocked users do, at least very often they do, and I would be cautious in hamstringing anybody's self-defense; I think it's a context where latitude is necessary. I understand that you don't like the section title, I even sympathise, but I think there's a logic to it, as a description of his self-defense. I have blocked him for calling you a bigot, you know. When you speak of other false claims on His E's page, I'd like to look further before I reply to your request to have them removed. Please tell me what and where they are, especially the homosexuality allegation. I don't see them on a quick read-through, and the page is rather long. I presume you're not talking about the section you removed yourself, since that is the section with the heading "My charge..." etc, and you specify these as being other false claims. Bishonen | talk 17:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC).
I removed his "butt buddy" comment as well. Think Google, Bishonen. If you think it acceptable that my name pops up with a screaming headline calling me a bigot, preceded by "My Charge that" or not...well, think again. Anyhow, he's already thought the better of it and changed it.Timothy Usher 19:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
We're not responsible for Google, though, and Bishonen's right: it's his talk page, and he labelled it according to what he wanted to do. We can't take responsibility for what some postulated person might understand from a search. Those of us jealous of our real life identities use assumed names on Misplaced Pages, and those who use real names are, more or less, accepting that this online world is going to be irresponsible with that name. Geogre 19:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It's conceivable that the office might disagree.Timothy Usher 19:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free, by all means, to contact the Foundation. Geogre 20:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Lars Gyllensten

Does the article (based on an obit) do him justice? Who is his aunt, Ture Rangström? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

ALoan I can't beleive you don't know who Ture Rangström, I even had you marked as a radio 3 person, now I must re-assess you. Poor old Mrs Rangström. Giano | talk 16:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Radio 4, particularly TMS on longwave, I am afraid. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've just knocked off a little stub from memory, I often hum one of his catchy little numbers in the bath Giano | talk 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Gyllensten died? Wow, that's sad, but...on the other hand, Ture Rangström his aunt (snicker)? One thinks irresistibly of Charley's Aunt. A nationally well-known composer, yes. Well done Giano! Gyllensten needs a fuller article IMO. I'll look into it (though I fully expect Tups to get there first). Bishonen | talk 17:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC).
Yes, thanks for the stub on the aunt, Big G. (I think a machine mistranslated/misparsed "whose sister was"/"sister of"... Have you seen who wrote Charley's Aunt? ;)
There is not much more on Lars at sv:Lars Gyllensten, unfortunately. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. To be absolutely frank, the phrasing of the Swedish article sounds a goodish deal like it thinks Gyllensten was the sister of Ture Rangström, lol. Bishonen | talk 18:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC).
  • Oh dear, how can people be so culturally ignorant, one despairs - had there been no Rangström there would have been no Abba - then where would you be on a Saturday night ALoan? Giano | talk 18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Ignorant? Pah. Did you see my Pellegrini on the Main Page? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks a lot!

Hello. I just finished my last exam today, so I am now back! Thank you very much for looking after my user page and also posting the relevant stuff on my arbitration; I am indebted - if there is anything you need or want doing, then just ask. :) I'll try my best, if it's not too much effort :P -- infinity0 15:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Noted. I'll hold you to it. ;P Bishonen | talk 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC).

The measure of genius

I've just written a nice little e-mail to my disciples explaining the critical history of "genius" before the era my article discusses. I'll share it with you later, as the question is whether or not I ought to change genius (literature) to incorporate it or if that would be repeating, essentially, stuff from the articles on poetry, Plato, and Pentecost. Geogre 17:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You have disciples? Acolytes too? Is tonsure required? ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Not tonsure but tenure, not heaven but purgatory unending. We make a heaven of hell and a hell of working 4 hours a day. Geogre 22:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No one told me

No one told me it was your birthday. Many Wishes and regards. As a birthday present, go ahead and make yourself a copy of my toolbox/Wiki-links located on my User page. Martial Law 21:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC).
  1. Jones