Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geogre (talk | contribs) at 23:18, 27 March 2007 (→The plaintive cry of the last standing deletionist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Wikimood

Bookmarks

ice sandbox favorites removing warnings moods RFAr/V RFAr/Giano RFAr/Ghirlandajo RFAr/Inshaneee Inshanee on ANI BD on ANI

RFC minor formatting

• Could you maybe help User:Anynobody with some minor formatting/procedural issues at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Anynobody and Justanother? I am not entirely familiar with the RFC formatting and procedure, as a specific RFC to users and not articles. Thank you for your time. Smee 00:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't blame you. It's quite misleading that user RFCs and article RFCs even share a name, as they function and are formatted quite differently. The most important thing about user RFCs is right at the top of the template: there must be a co-signer of the RFC, somebody who has attempted (independently of Anynobody) to resolve the issues with JA. Both Anynobody and the other editor must sign, and provide evidence of their efforts to resolve the problem within 48 hours of creating the RFC. Evidence means diffs. Everything else can pretty much wait, but the 48-hour thing is obligatory, and if it's not complied with, the RFC is highly likely to be deleted as soon as the 48 hours are up.

What I'd prefer to do is move the page into Anynobody's own space, in other words give it a name of the form User:Anynobody/Requests for comment/Justanother; stop the people who have already been asked to comment; move it back into Misplaced Pages space later, when it's a bit more ready to meet the world; and start those 48 hours then instead of now. OK? Then I could give some help and advice tomorrow, as I'm about to go to bed right now. (Such is my timezone.) If you reply now—right now—I can move the page; if not, please confer with A and move it yourself if you know how (it's easy), or ask any experienced user. For instance one of the freaks that hang out at this page of mine. And don't list it on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct yet! Bishonen | talk 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Did not get to your comment early enough, but added myself as a party and some evidence. Let myself or User:Anynobody know how it looks/what should be done at this point... Also, what is the best way to notify previously involved parties about the existence of the page in a neutral manner? Smee 16:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Well... I'm actually a little frustrated that you asked my advice and then ignored it. Changing the page into a userpage until it's ready is the way to go IMO, especially because then there'll be time to deal properly with the "dispute resolution" thing. Changing it into a userpage can be done any time as long as nobody has commented, after that it'll be too late. But never mind, this is what to do with an RFC that's already in Misplaced Pages space (=has a name beginning with "Misplaced Pages"):

• The name of the page should be Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Justanother. This is standard, and Anynobody, who's making the request, isn't supposed to be in the title.
• The page must be listed and linked on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct.
• About notifying people, that's a little delicate, indeed. The only person who must be notified, and perhaps the only one who should be, is Justanother. If you want to spread the news, you obviously have to be careful not to simply notify people who have issues with Justanother. Not sure what you mean by "previously involved". Involved in what? Anynobody seems to be asking for comments on the way the two of them have been interacting—how is anybody else involved in that?
• The links at "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" are no good, to put it brutally. Posting warning templates on JA's page certainly doesn't qualify as attempted dispute resolution. (Didn't I tell you once that it was frowned on?) Dispute resolution means a bona fide attempt at reaching out, and I think you may be too upset with JA to be the best person for it. Suggestion: try asking Jossi, who knows the ropes, to contact JA and try to talk with him about Anynobody's concerns. (Yes, I know there's little time for that... people do tend to run short of time at this point. The way it's looking now, practically any admin will delete the page after 48 hours, if JA requests it.) A technical point, also: the top 3 links under "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" don't work, and I think there are some more on the page that don't. You need html links for talkpage sections, and you need permanent links, that'll still point to the same section after the page itself is archived or whatever. And, as the instructions say, linking to a whole page isn't useful. I can easily format the links so they work right if you like (just ask), but you do need to have better dispute resolution to point to.
• I don't think Anynobody should put his reason for making the request on the talkpage, it should be on the main page. Under "Statement of the dispute", perhaps, or "Description". (It's a very nice explanation—it's good to see a RFC that's not full of acrimony and it's-all-his-fault —but it would be even better if it was a little shorter.)
• Finally, I'm sorry it's such a bureaucratic nightmare. You probably weren't expecting that. User RFC's are horrible timesinks. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

My apologies.

• Well... I'm actually a little frustrated that you asked my advice and then ignored it. - Please understand that I had started to add to the RFC, upon request from User:Anynobody, before I had seen your suggestions, so I did not "ignore" your suggestions, it was just too late. At any rate, I will try to implement some of your suggestions now. Please bear with me, as you are correct - I am unfamiliar with this process. If you feel you can adjust the page, be my guest. Smee 00:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  • I have notified User:Jossi as per your suggestion and asked for help. DIFF If you think you can fix some of the links on the RFC page, and/or fix it to be more appropriate, that would be most helpful. Smee 01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Also, can an editor list/link at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct or is that an Admin's job? How is the proper way to do this? Smee 01:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

"Changing it into a userpage can be done any time as long as nobody has commented, after that it'll be too late." Nobody has commented, so I can still userfy it to give you more time for dispute resolution. Shall I do that, or do you think you can have it done up right within the 48 hours? I won't do a technical fix of the links at this stage, as I think you need links to better places. Good that you pinged Jossi. Anybody can list the page, but if you do want the page userfied, it shouldn't be listed yet. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I am not opposed to userfying the page, but User:Anynobody started the RFC initially, I was just responding to his request that I add comments/evidence. If you or Anynobody wishes to do that - I have no objection - but I probably should not. Smee 01:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Oh, I'd better not, then, I assumed you two were in touch. But I've moved A's explanation from the talkpage to the project page. Please let him know that he should sign it, if you speak — no reason to make the reader dig around for who is bringing the RFC. Bishonen | talk 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I wouldn't know any more than you. I've only "spoken" to him through Misplaced Pages talk pages. But I will let him know if I do. Again, as User:Anynobody started the RFC, and not myself, as far as I am concerned your judgment is fine. Smee 01:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm really sorry to cause so much trouble on both of your parts, rest assured I'm learning. Also please understand I am very thankful for your help. Maybe an RfC was the wrong road for me to take? Essentially I'd like other editors to take a look at my interaction with User:Justanother. I honestly don't know if I'm wrong or right, so my intention in listing myself was making it clear I'm willing to accept accountability for any errors I've made. Anynobody 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC) To be clear I'm happy to accept any suggestions. Anynobody 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Better than an RfC, that as Bishonen put it are "horrible timesinks" (an opinion that I also share), would you consider informal mediation between you and Justanother? Sometimes having such a third-party assisting can really help in disputes such as this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I did consider mediation at first, but personally I'd like to hear from several editors. If I understand what Bishonen is proposing, it would be to move the page as is to a subpage under my userpage. Once it gets a few comments, then move it back to the RfC? If that's what the proposal is I have no objections. Anynobody 06:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not "once it gets a few comments". It won't get comments while it's in your userspace, that's the whole point. It won't start until it's moved back to a live RFC, and, on my reading of the always-vexed RFC rules, you would be able to restart the clock for those 48 hours when it was moved back. What you need the time for is dispute resolution. The rule is that there must be real attempts, by two people, to resolve differences with JA, or the RFC gets deleted. It doesn't have to be formal mediation, informal is fine, but it must be a real discussion—not scolding JA with warning templates and such. Of course the hope is that the mediation will be enough in itself, and the RFC become superfluous—compare Jossi's comment here. But if it isn't enough, it's in any case a prerequsite for the RFC. OK, I've gone ahead and moved the page into your userspace as User:Anynobody/Requests for comment/Justanother. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

A quick question before this goes any further, did it really seem like I was posting warning templates and scolding him? Anynobody 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, IMO your attempts were ok, I was talking about Smee's. "There must be real attempts, by *two people*, to resolve differences with JA". See the top of the RFC template: "at least *two people* need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed". You're only one. Bishonen | talk 07:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your reply, I'm sorry if that last question seemed blunt but what you were describing is exactly the kind of thing I meant to avoid. Considering that I didn't mean to create a situation where an RfC was necessary, for a little while I thought I was really messing up if you were describing my attempts the way I thought. I also don't want to give you the impression I don't consider your advice valuable, I just figured the worst that could happen was it got rejected. I know it may sound crazy, but I've been trying to do this without making things worse with Justanother. If I had to find somebody else to sign off besides Smee he might think I was creating a cabal against him (I wish I could say I'm joking). Anynobody 07:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with whatever User:Anynobody and User:Bishonen are comfortable with. Smee 07:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen I guess your proposal confused me because Smee and myself make two people trying to resolve these issues on User:Justanother's talkpage. I found a couple of other editor's who's posts User:Justanother archived from his talk page regarding similar concerns. I re-posted it for consideration. If it fails (the RfC), then it fails. I really do appreciate your time on this, thanks :) Anynobody 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Uvak38/Veronica Yurach Aboriginal Artist

User:Uvak38/Veronica Yurach Aboriginal Artist Thank you Bishonen for moving my article and not just quick deleting it. I also appreciate your advice on the wording in my article that needs to be changed, you are the first who has made it clear to me what is wrong with it. As far as Veronica's story goes I will have verifiable published reference material from a reliable source.

Very cool. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Clue needed

Hi. I know that Smee respects your opinion so could you please send him a clue re his removal of my POV tag. diff of my objecting. Thanks. --Justanother 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And edit warring over it. ps Please see User_talk:Jossi#Your_offer and User talk:MrDarcy#PA by User:Johnpedia for a different perspective on Anynobody, i.e. the view from the trenches. Thanks. --Justanother 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And finally the false accusation of PA. Smee is back and true to form. --Justanother 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Scared.

• I am quite frankly getting scared for my personal safety due to User:Justanother's personal attacks in edit summaries and elsewhere. DIFF1, DIFF2. There is a reason for the language text in Misplaced Pages:No Personal Attacks that says comment on content not contributors. I am uncomfortable and not well with this, to say the least. Smee 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  • OH MY GAWD. What a drama queen! Can someone please please please send him a clue! --Justanother 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry this conflict is getting to you, Smee. I have to agree with Friday and Justanother that there's no external reason for you to be scared, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. That's not what it's supposed to be like to edit here! I hope you'll find it in you to walk away from the most stressful pages for a few days and decompress by editing uncontroversial stuff. When people do that, they're often surpried and relieved to find that other people do pick up the slack. That the page does survive their absence. Or so ALoan tells me. ALoan, back me up here? Bishonen | talk 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Thank you for the support. Smee 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
        • And Smee, while I figured the "Scared" was all BS for effect, I do realize that I could have been wrong and you might actually be getting that upset and really be feeling fear. Just know, Smee, that I come in peace! Mean you no harm. Would certainly buy you a cuppa coffee if we were to meet. So no worries, man. --Justanother 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
          • That is hard to believe, but I will try. Suffice it to say that that situation would be unlikely to occur. Smee 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
            • Smee, I am a total sweetheart! You would love me. --Justanother 03:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
              • We're done here. while I figured the "Scared" was all BS for effect does not go very far towards acknowledging that my feelings are real. It invalidates your following statements. But thanks for the effort. Just try to act like a total sweetheart here on Misplaced Pages, like you would offline, and we should get along better. Smee 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
                • I said that to explain why I called you a "drama queen" instead of making any effort to acknowledge your feelings and try to assuage your fears. Bishonen's reply highlighted my failing so I tried to repair it. Or at least repair the part where you say that you felt fear for your safety in the real world. As far as your "safety" here, I offered you an olive branch twice and you spit at me. That said, I have decided to give my sarcasm a rest but you can still expect me to continue to object most strenuously to any abusive editing on your part. --Justanother 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • I am glad that you say that you will finally try to give your sarcasm a rest. I am sure that will be appreciated by all. Smee 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
                    • Maybe. --Justanother 03:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, a bit late for backing up, but yes: if you are doing a job that needs doing, then I find that someone will step in and do it if you stop doing it. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Isps gate.jpg

This image was released under the GFDL. I'm not aware that such a release can be revoked. Is there a reason why it was deleted? -Will Beback · † · 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was problematic, sorry. In view of what I've just read on the article talk, and what people told me on IRC, I've undeleted. Bishonen | talk 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. -Will Beback · † · 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Clue-o-gram needed

Would you mind helping User:Anynobody out with a clue? I am including a stamp because I figured that you probably needed one and that is why you were not able to clue Smee in for me earlier. Anyway, now Anynobody is impugning User:MrDarcy as "representing" me and being "out of line". Diff. I feel bad because Mr Darcy is on wiki-break and he was just trying to help me with a very rude post, User talk:MrDarcy/Archive5#PA by User:Johnpedia. Thanks. --Justanother 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

From my archive "You appear to experience some kind of Incredible Hulk persona when you really start to melt down (I was gonna say Jekyl/Hyde but the Hulk sounds less like an insult considering many consider him to be a superhero whereas the former is considered a monster)." --Anynobody --Justanother 05:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Justanother I can tell you are really angry, but in this case you took things a bit too far when you had MrDarcy chastise Johnpedia for simply giving me his opinion in a user talk page discussion. Johnpedia might have phrased his opinion differently if he knew you would be watching. Also I can't invite you, you asked me not to post on your talk page anymore (Posting notice of the RfC is an exception, you still deserve to know about action be taken against you). Anynobody 09:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not angry, Anynobody; I am having a blast. When I get angry it is pretty obvious, as you well know (green skin, torn clothes, you know). --Justanother 15:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Monstergram

(Oh, come on.) To whom it concern: little Justanother total sweetheart. What's with bad press for monsters? ROAAARRRR!!! Bishzilla (experiencing very good persona) | ROAR 07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Little people not understand green skin monsters. Green skin monsters not bad! Only big! --JustaHulk 12:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A flower...

Aww! It's lovely. Thank you Zocky. And thank you very much for the picture popups, the search function, and the link completion. :-) Bishonen | talk 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

What is all this about the 8th March being so special- is it someone's bithday? Giano 23:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes! It is the birthday of Klara Zetkin that we all celebrate here. --Irpen 23:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Beter still in 1971 on this day Joe Frazier beat Muhammad Ali - truly amazing date! Giano 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bish, in case you also like "sweet and cheezy", we are all human after all, here (Image:8march_landysh.jpg) is the image from the same country on a different theme. I am not allowed to post a fairuse image to your page :(, so only a link but see here for a full context. Cheers, --Irpen 02:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinclair Lewis was the first American to win the Nobel Prize for literature. That's the connection to Sweden, as Lewis wrote Babbitt, and he said, when he accepted, "Our American professors like their authors like their literature: dead." Well, Lewis is now liked by professors, and poor, dumb Mr. Babbitt has become an adjective. Why, he's a big man at the local Elk's Club. An Elk is not to be confused with Anne Elk, who was a noted female professor whom the Soviets decided to celebrate on March 8th. Geogre 02:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• in that respect then poor dumb Mr Babbit was rather like poor Mr Bobbit Giano 12:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mrs. Babbitt was a pro with a chopping knife, but she would never have considered attacking her blobbery husband. Also, he was rather sexless, or befuddled about it, and lacked the malice necessary for getting an immigrant bride and then committing marital rape. He was a praire flower, not a Bronx cheer. Geogre 12:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I meant in becoming an adjective, although I think Mrs Bobbit created a very - what did yu think I meant? Giano 12:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick favor?

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

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel strange . . . head . . . swimming . . . clothes . . . stretching

Need help. Users Smee and FoO breaking rules at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Justanother. Posting threaded counter-point to my supporter is direct violation of the instruction statement at the top of the section and at the bottom of the RfC. My response area mine, not for non-supporter, that must go on talk page . . . must . . . hold . . . on . . . 3RR on it now cannot do more . . . . need help. --Justanother 03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Users signing other subsection should not edit the the "Response" section, but that does not mean that they cannot comment below it. And it is highly inappropriate and conflict-of-interest for User:Justanother to be the one to "clerk" the page, and remove what he feels should not belong. That should instead fall to the mediators and outside parties involved in the RFC. Smee 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Smee, you are clearly misreading the very clear instructions. The Response Section is the section after Statement of the dispute and before Outside view. That section is for me and my supporters to make our statements without having to "defend" them in threaded discussions. Now take a look at the final bit where threaded responses to endorsements are specifically covered. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page. How clear does it have to be? --Justanother 03:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a signed comment directly related to an endorsement, which is allowed. But in any rate, it is not your job to police the RFC in the manner that you see fit for it to proceed. Not to mention it reflects poorly on your behaviour patterns. Smee 04:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

"it reflects poorly on your behaviour patterns" that I want to play by the rules? And you are wrong; it is not allowed. Wanna bet a week's editing? --Justanother 04:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Silence --Justanother 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll let others respond to this one. This bullbaiting is a waste of time. Smee 05:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Well OK, I just made you an offer to "put your money where your mouth is". Nothing wrong with that. Guess you don't care to. --Justanother 05:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You about?

Hello Bishonen, got a quick favor to ask of you regarding a block you performed the other day. You about? (→Netscott) 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Guy got to it. You blocked user Headphonos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a week the other day. I uncovered that that account was a sockpuppet of the banned User:SirIsaacBrock and JzG wasn't around so I was going to ask you to indef. block the sock. JzG has taken care of it, he also indef. blocked Arcticdawg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another sockpuppet of the same user. Cheers. (→Netscott) 14:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thanks, I was real busy but I was getting to it... sort of. ;-) Bishonen | talk 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

A favour

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

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

I assume you don't want to cut and paste the article in your user page over the existing article, but would rather move it to keep the edit history intact? I have the potestas administratorum - would you like me to help? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ALoan, I think Bishonen is doing while we speak! Giano 11:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sweatheart Giano 11:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it—people couldn't leave the talkpage alone for two minutes. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. This is gonna be messy, avert your eyes. Bishonen | talk 11:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Zilla fix! Talkpage successfully merged with Project:Paranormal! All edit now! Bishzilla | ROAR 11:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Gulp, little user prostates self at altar of zilla's fury, thinks might be reprehensible. user learn better wikiteque - quick! --Joopercoopers 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

/Bishzilla stuff little user firmly in pocket to keep safe from Bishonen's puny wrath. Encouragingly: Climb Reichstag now, little Joopercoopers? Bishzilla | ROAR 21:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

A clue, a clue, my kingdom for a clue.

Diff. When people that have the clues do not share the clues then the clueless remain clueless. --Justanother 15:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks . . . a lot

Thank you very much, Bishonen. Really! I am going to try to enjoy a well-earned wiki-break! --Justanother 02:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The deleted RfC

Hello Bishonen,

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

02:36, 10 March 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) deleted "Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Justanother" (This is much older than 48 hours with the certification still woefully inadequate, as I warned the participants several days ago, and Justanother has requested deletion.) Bishonen I understand you felt that it didn't meet the RfC requirements, however somebody else did and added it to the approved section. Moreover you didn't respond to my last post under the RfC discussion explaining that I was not the only signer, which is why it got approved I thought. You could have at least explained your view more clearly before deleting the RfC, either in the request itself or the RfC talk page.. I can see by your talk page history that you and Justanother are friends, and I suspect you may have let your feelings get in the way on this issue. I'm asking you to undelete the RfC, as there were other editors who have yet to comment. There certainly must be some way to escalate this matter above you, and must point out that if you take no further action I will research and pursue them. Anynobody 04:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I could have explained my view more clearly? Gosh. Well, if you say so. I did my best. Certainly there are ways of seeking review of administrative actions, and I encourage you to pursue them. The formal way is to open an RFC on me. A simpler, more informal way is to post on WP:ANI. See the page instructions: "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here." Bishonen | talk 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Hello Anynobody, I can appreciate why you may be understandably annoyed at the RfC being deleted. However, I cannot agree with your assessment that Bishonen and Justanother are operating in a conflict of interest; in fact, please note this exchange with regards to the BabyDweezil case. It would appear the RfC User Comment process is very time-consuming, which is one reason why editors and admins are reluctant to pursue them, except in clear cases of disputes which cannot be resolved any other way. My personal opinion of Justanother's editing behavior is that it is inappropriate, however in order to back a new RfC, I would also need to demonstrate that I had made adequate attempts to resolve my dispute with Justanother, which I cannot do, as Justanother appears to me to become overtly hostile as soon as the premises he cites as facts are called into question. I find it difficult to reach consensus when such behavior is exhibited. However, I do believe and have observed that, to your credit, you have not only attempted to avoid disputes in the first place, you have also made considerable efforts to resolve them, despite Justanother's clearly uncivil and disruptive behavior, and the tag team games being played with an editor who has now been banned. It also appears to me that Justanother has a pattern of making comments to incite and provoke people, and initiate discussions in which his stated premises are inherently flawed; to cite one example of many: in the Barbara Schwarz article, he falsely claimed it was sourced mainly from postings to the Usenet and thus is not reliably sourced. I have read Bishonen's comments here and other comments about the process here and I hope Bishonen can suggest some ways to resolve the dispute. I do not personally believe Bishonen let feelings interfere with the RfC issue, and I believe you may agree that Bishonen may have had feelings to the contrary of those suggested after reading the exchange above with regards to the "section break and noticeboard disruption". Please review it, as it may change some of your opinions stated above. Kind regards, Orsini 09:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How about instead of deleting, you could move it back to User:Anynobody/Requests for comment/Justanother? Smee 04:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

What, again? Sorry, no, that's not the way it's done. See the RFC instructions: "If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted." Not "will be moved to the userspace". Also, not "may" be deleted: will be deleted. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I think it's been totally deleted, so it needs to be started from scratch - if it's appropriate to deal with the issue in this way. Orsini 09:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest, Orsini? I'm afraid you've caught me at a bad time for it. I did suggest, as you saw at the top of this page, under the heading "Minor formatting", where I did my very best to babysit this RFC to one that would not have to be deleted. Anynobody had pursued reasonable dispute resolution, Smee had not. Note that according to the rules, dispute resolution must be done by two editors, and must be seen to have been done, in the RFC itself, in the form of diffs, under the heading "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". I tried to explain how vital this was, and repeatedly warned Smee and Anynobody about the 48-hour rule. First I tried to get Anynobody to keep it in his userspace, to give time for the matter to be taken care of; indeed at one point I boldly moved it there myself; he would have none of it. I explained to Smee what was wrong with the diffs he presented as dispute resolution — I quote myself:

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

The links that were there when I deleted the RFC were no better. So, you ask, can I suggest alternative ways of resolving the dispute? Yes: try mediation. If anybody involved in this dispute wants further admin advice, I have to recommend you to ask someone else. I'm all talked out. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Talked out as you may now be, your efforts in spelling out things so concisely above are appreciated, and have not been wasted. Thank you for your reply. Best wishes, Orsini 13:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why Deletionism is the Only Valid View

Character Sketch sat there as vandalism (not vandalized, but vandalism) with clean up tags on it for a good, long time. I don't know why I didn't delete it and create a new article so as to obliterate the history, but I suppose it was so that I could make a point about how more junk needs deleting and starting over. A valid subject does not warrant leaving garbage in place. Geogre 13:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (Addendum: it's also at a position against Misplaced Pages naming conventions. It soooo should have been deleted when it was a dirty joke. Not now, of course.)

Wikify! Cleanup! Replace deprecated template! Fix some spelling errors! Where would we be without the wikignomes! By the time I got to the people who changed the whole example sketch to "I like pussy" or "I like cheeseburger", I had every sympathy. They sure didn't make it any worse. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Yeah. It started as original essay with incorrect information, then got labelled a bunch, then got turned into "I like pussy," and that was "cleaned up" to "cheeseburgers." An analytical essay? Huh? Mine's not good, mind you, but I also don't think we especially need an article on what a character sketch is. A character sketch is a ... sketch ... of ... a character. Geogre 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought of plumping it up with a bit of Pope? Remember the characters of women? I often quote "Some women have no character at all" to myself, in my head, when I catch myself with my hand in the salmiak jar. :-) Bishonen | talk 04:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

That's true, although, I suppose, to be nice about it, the "character sketch" is probably more common and better known as the "memories of Local Person" in the newspaper and the "portrait of Grotesque" that creative writing classes assign, so it would be a little mean to put in Atticus or Sporus or any of the women who have no characters in the Epistle to a Lady. Now, for an article on character, it would be so in. Geogre 12:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and ewwwww! for any candy that is only candy with the proper chemical added. Geogre 13:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

Sorry to disappear into the ozone last quarter. Life gets complicated! Thanks for your input on the deletion vote on my user page. I appreciate the support for our little creative effort, even though it went nowhere. Even though my time is limited, I did manage to do some archiving and ran my watchlist during the last week. Some important material was lost to vandalism, so I see that things have not really changed much. I will not be around much for the forseeable future as I will be in Idaho for the next couple of weeks. Best Wishes. WBardwin 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to you, and your friends, for a reply. In looking things over (I really was out of the wiki-loop), the revelations about User:Essjay has shaken things up here. I had a good opinion of him/her in our limited contact, and appreciated his/her contributions. I see that User:Dmcdevit, who I "talk" with regularly, seems to have taken some personal responsibility for the situation, as he had recommended Essjay for additional responsibilities. This is so very unfortunate for all sincere editors here -- and for the encyclopedia. How are the administrators dealing with the issue? Is there anyway we peons could help? Best........ WBardwin 01:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We're all peons here, W. I have little idea what goes on in the higher echelons. As many people are fond of pointing out, with a triumph I never quite understood, WP:NOT a democracy. Bishzilla has the little arbcom in her pocket, but, heck, that's her, not me. As usual with the latest scandal, there was a furore (here and here), and then it died down. The big difference is that the outside world is a lot more interested (not in a good way) this time. :-( Let's see, what else. Oh, yes, Jimbo Wales has proposed a "verified credentials" scheme. If that means an enforced release of our real identities on the internets, I'm out of here, personally—I'm funny that way. But, perhaps strangely, I haven't followed the case closely. All the little scandals are going on as usual, and claiming (wasting) the usual too-much-time. Bishonen | talk 02:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Evidence

I know you didn't mean to, but I think mistakently labeled InShaneee as blocking Worldtraveller's account in your evidence page. As you can see by the block log, InShaneee never blocked Worldtraveller directly, only indirectly when he was a IP on January 2 i think this is the log. I came to request you actually change the title of the section of your evidence page to "InShaneee's block of Worldtraveller', 3 January 2007" to "InShaneee's block of 81.178.208.69, 2 January 2007", because while the fact that it was Worldtraveller behind the IP, InShaneee never blocked Worldtraveller directly. Thanks! — Moe 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hi, Moe. Did I refer to the wrong block log? That wouldn't surprise me, but I can't find where I refer to a log for the 24-hour January block at all. If I did, can you tell me where, please? As for changing the heading, or referring to WT by his (varying) IP, no, I'd rather not. I call the user--the person--Worldtraveller throughout--it's not a mistake, but rather a mark of respect. I don't think it has any potential for misunderstanding, either, since I don't discuss the circumstances of InShaneee's block of the anonymous editor at all (if I had, I would have gone into the IP thing.) I have assumed WT himself and others will do that sufficiently, and also canvass the IP thing to the point of boredom and beyond--the arbcom doesn't have any realistic chance to miss it. I discuss the aftermath. (Same reasoning with A Link to the Past, btw--I don't address the reasons for the block, I assume others will). I don't want that heading changed. But thanks for bringing it up for consideration! I appreciate your scrupulousness in taking it to me, rather than changing it yourself. (P. S. Wrong date? Weird. Thanks.) Bishonen | talk 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, since it technically WT's IP and the section is accuratly describing everything else for the most part, I guess it doesn't hurt anything to say that it was in fact WT blocked instead of the IP. I just thought for the sake of accuracy it should be changed *shrug* no matter. Yeh, my scrupulousness is shocking too considering how many bold things I do without discussing it first :) Cheers! — Moe 04:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to response from CBDunkerson (eom)

• Eom? Is that like "burp" or "yum" or "excuse me?" It really should be. Geogre 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me butting in here, but I think you may have misread CBD's original comment. He was indeed defending you against Tony's ridiculous attack. (and, Geogre, if you really don't know, eom means "end of message"). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And I always tell my students never to write "In conclusion" in their conclusions: the words stop, so I figure that's the conclusion. Putting in a TLA to announce that there will be no more words is a bit weird, and saying, "This is all I have to say to you (link) and that's all I intend to say (eom)" is a bit...oh, let's call it brusque. Geogre 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And I think you may have read it too superficially, so we're even. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

My paraphrase of CBD's coment: "Boy Howdy it sure does look like them fellas are conspiring together in a nasty convoluted plot with the sole goal of getting Inshaneee in trouble for some reason, but the AGF policy says we have to pretend it's just a crazy coink-i-dink, yup." Very inspiring stuff. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You go from strength to strength, dear boy. Bishonen | talk 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

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

Second, about CBD's original comment. I think Bunchofgrapes's paraphrase is nowhere near accurate. I'm not sure you've noticed, but I am one of the folks who objected to his block of WT. I'm on your side in this. But this doesn't mean everything CBD says is evil. My paraphrase would be "Hey, Tony, your interpretation of this requires a bizarre convoluted nasty plot that no reasonable person would imagine could possibly be the case." His phrasing was a little oblique (and he's later apologized about this as well), but IMO the basic message was supportive. There may indeed be more history here than I'm seeing, but this is how I'm interpreting this exchange. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope it didn't look like anybody here was being brusque to you, in any case. I appreciate your taking the trouble to post. Bishonen | talk 02:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I think it's sort of cool that we have someone who, when presented with a clear choice, will reliably choose to defend the greater of two evils. If nothing else, he's a handy moral barometer to have around, in the sense of a compass that always points South. Nandesuka 02:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

/Bishzilla laughs majestically, whole page shakes and rumbles. Little Nandesuka be first to enjoy Bishzilla new SUPER POWER SIG! See how cool: Bishzilla _ROARR!! 03:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

(→Netscott) bows down to Bishzilla's impressive signature. (→Netscott) 04:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I followed a link from the Arbcom case here and noticed this discussion. The link and 'eom' thing is my standard way of handling comments on my talk page... I respond there and post a link so that the person is notified of the response, but the discussion is not split between two pages. The 'eom' is to clarify that it is not an error that no further message is included below the title... which used to be an extremely common usage, but is apparently a bit dated. Sorry if it was unclear, perhaps I should link the 'eom' to End of Message.

On the other bit, I had already explained a few times that I was trying to underline how outlandish Tony's accusation was. If you choose not to accept that then there seems little I can do about it.

Finally, thank you Rick - for demonstrating the sort of character and true meaning of AGF, even towards those you disagree with, which all users should aspire to. --CBD 22:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy link

Bishonen, you might want to look at this, since it appears that once of your posts to AN/I was wiped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I was the last to know what damage I had done :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

your help is needed

Hey Bish, I'm not sure if you got my reply for the e-mail. So anyway long story short, going back to several other similar cases of block-evasion/ban-evasion such as User:Nationalist, User:PoolGuy, etc, it is pretty apparent that there isn't a great distinction between an indef. block and community ban. Obviously, circumventing a ban and then getting rewarded for it just seems illogical. Seriously, this is a joke. But anyway, worst case scentario I guess is to go straight to arbCom and get them to define an actual distinction between block and ban. Oh and btw did Crum e-mail youb back? Your thoughts on this?--Certified.Gangsta 10:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. Yes, he replied, it's me that's been real busy, sorry. But I saw the lates post on your page... it's a relief. Bishonen | talk 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Bishy. On a related note, do you think it's necessary to protect his talkpage too? Given that there are some crazy wikilawyering and that unblock requests have been turned down more than 4 times in his previous accounts combined.--Certified.Gangsta 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. Protecting the talkpage of a blocked user is a very extreme action, it should only be done in cases of extreme and ongoing disruption. On a semi-related note, I commented in that weird half-archived thread on ANI, don't know if you saw it? Bishonen | talk 23:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Yup I just did. Thank you :)--Certified.Gangsta 23:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The gargle has worked

a blessed miracle - he has found his voice. Let's hope he loses it again soon for all the good it does wiki-kind! Giano 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Adm... admonish..? Oh, piss. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

FA FAQ

Hi Bishonen. You dropped out of the discussion after the first night re changes to WIAFA. I wrote up this because the idea of an FAQ for FAs met with some approval later. Any comments welcome. Obviously, we need to be very careful about launching new wording for FAs, but I think there are some sound ideas written down here, that need to be written down. Marskell 22:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I simply hadn't read the talk page since you posted that - rather busy at work. Yes, it is helpful. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for more, then. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

User:His excellency

Bishonen, given your prior participation in discussions relative to this user, you should be aware of this thread. Cheers. (→Netscott) 17:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott, I saw it, actually. I haven't decided whether to comment, but I've asked them to move the proposal. It should go on WP:CN. Bishonen | talk 17:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I understand your reservations. If the IP is indeed HE then of course such disruption is getting a bit out of hand and makes me hesitant as well. Good on you for pointing out WP:CN as well. Thanks for the response. See you. (→Netscott) 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

A favor

Hi. I know that User:Smee respects your opinion so I am asking if you would be interested in helping out with my dispute with Smee over what I consider his WP:DE. I have sincerely tried to get him to stop but this is ongoing and just cropped up again. I would like to get a 3rd party involved, not as a precursor to some time-wasting User RfC, but to genuinely handle this dispute. Here is the latest:

1. Once upon a time there was a small article about a small anti-Scientology propaganda piece called The Bridge (film). It looked like this not too long ago. I had been editing in the article almost since its creation. Smee has been there a while too, we met there in fact and Smee gave me a Barnstar for being nice to him (that is because I am nice, at least until it is proven that the intention to be nice is most definitely not shared).
2. Smee made a series of edits to give what I consider undue prominence to the dedication in what I consider an effort to make the article itself into an anti-Scientology propaganda piece. Here and then with a screenshot here. There are other similar efforts by Smee at what I consider propagandizing both in that article and in others but I am not addressing Smee's POV-pushing here, I am addressing his WP:DE in pursuit of it.
3. Ten minutes after opening a topic in talk, I removed the undue prominence and replaced it with a mention of the dedication in the lead; a very fair compromise, I thought.
4. One hour later, Smee reverted me without discussion even though I had specifically invited discussion in talk. He claimed in that edit summary I lacked consensus when, in actual fact, his "dedicating the article" is what really lacked consensus. He claimed I failed to discuss when it was him that had failed to discuss. Smee continued his improper edit-warring (history) and only stopped because I asked a neutral 3rd party to weigh in. When the neutral party also objected (more as a "film person" I think than as someone sensitive to the use of this project as a propaganda medium but that speaks to the fact that propagandists violate simple standards of article creation that are evident even without considering POV issues), Smee self-reverted with a deprecating remark. Another editor with media experience came in and agreed on non-POV issues that Smee's edit is inappropriate for the article.

In my opinion, Smee's behavior in this incident is disrespectful and disruptive. Bishonen, I could show you a number of similar incidents but this one shows my problem just fine, I think. It really is a problem; not my POV, not me whining, etc. Smee makes inappropriate edits then edit wars over them rather then discuss and continues to edit war until a 3rd party or parties come in and back me up (and they always seem to back me up). I do not mind that Smee does not want to take my word when I say that one of his edits will not stand. That is his right. I do want him to stop edit-warring to reinsert the inappropriate POV edit until the issue is resolved. The disputed material should be removed to talk and discussed and remain removed until the issue is resolved, not reinserted repeatedly in some phony "compromise" (a term he likes to use as he reinserts). That is my desired outcome. His agreement to to so. Would you please help us? Thanks. --Justanother 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Justanother. I think in all honesty it's somebody else's turn to deal with youse guys. I'm off to a rest home for a while. Why not ask Jossi? He even offered to help mediate between you, didn't he? Braver man than me. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Understand completely and do not hold it in the least against you. I will "shop it around" a bit. Thanks and enjoy the jello - I hear the orange flavor is particularly good! Take care. --Justanother 20:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please respond

to this. --Ideogram 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

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

I'm sorry, but can you please explain to me how Bishonen is somehow responsible for this individual? El_C 04:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

What is: "Given the concerns expressed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop" supposed to mean, specifically? El_C 04:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, El C. In the workshop for the RFAr on InShaneee, Tony Sidaway offered the "Proposed finding of fact" that Worldtraveller had stalked and personally attacked InShaneee, and that "statements by some experienced Wikipedians" had encouraged him to do so. The only link given by Tony for that encouragement was to a statement by me. Tony and Ideogram went on to discuss how my "bad advice" was something of an excuse for Worldtraveller (who protested indignantly at what he called "condescending nonsense"). I'm assuming that workshop thread was the concern Ideogram had in mind. I didn't reply to the Proposed finding. Tony had linked to some of my best work, so there didn't seem much to add. Perhaps Ideogram was worried I might not have seen it, and prodded me on ANI and here on my page to get a dialogue going? I don't think that would be fruitful or constructive though. (I have some prior experience of attempting to dialogue with him.) El C, please don't encourage him to post here. Ideogram, please don't post here. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I understand your position and share your indignation. El_C 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A present

Smee on ANI

Here - your comments are welcome. Thanks --Justanother 05:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not revert war

--Ideogram 18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One rv is a revert war now? How interesting. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One RV should be enough, I would think. People who want to see it or make it again and again are obviously having some sort of adverse pscyhopharmaceutical reaction. I mean, Ideogram must be talking about the movie, right? There's no context to what he says. Or is there a war at donut, which is often misspelled as "donot." Donuts are for eating, and they make very poor implements of war. (I would rather not say more now. I have many dark theories about the evil genius that we need to get rid of. See me on secret.agent.irc.) Geogre 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Image help?

Allo.
So, I just picked an admin at random for some help with something pretty small.
(btw, you may want to tell bishzilla to be more carefully when handling editors. It took me a LONG time to de-flattenify myself after I got squashed!)
Anyways, I noticed that the sata logo was a jpg, and there's a notice requesting that someone replace it with a svg or png image. I'm veeery new to svg, and have zero knowledge of how to upload images, do copyright stuff, yadda yadda yadda.
So, anyways, I just used inkscape to essentially trace the original logo, also exported as a png, and uploaded both to my school account. Any chance you upload this and/or this, if they are suitable replacements? (And is just a link to a blown-up svg version, if that's necessary for anything)
This request also goes out to any of the many editors who tend to read this talk page. (except bishzilla. I don't want to be squished again. It messes with my hair.) Bladestorm 20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know how to upload, but am a bit fuzzy about image formats and their appropriateness, also whether the way you made yours is ok copyright-wise, so I hereby request some image whizz to do it. Wait, I'll have Bishzilla request it with her new power sig, so nobody has a chance of MISSING IT. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Zilla kindly request page visitor to help the little Bladestorm! Bishzilla _ROARR!! zilla4admin 21:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Transcendental Meditation

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

GimmeBot

Regarding this, yes and no. Most article talk pages have been GimmeBotified, but not all; the (temporary) instructions are hard to nail down during the transition because there are several different scenarios. The bot moves the facfailed nomination to an archive, closes and tags it, clears the redirect, leaving a link to the old nom on the cleared fac page, so that a subsequent nominator will find the old failedfac already linked on the new fac page (hence, "retain"). "Add" will go away once botification is finished, and retain will be accurate. While the bot work is underway, I've been watching each fac nom to make sure all the pieces are in the right place. I'm going to be traveling; if you want to tweak further to cover all the bases until the bot work is done, Gimmetrow can help. Eventually, the instructions will have to be rewritten, eliminating any mention of add, move or archive, as the bot will have done all of that in advance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the same phenomenon in the progression of Microsoft Operating systems: the "easier to use" something gets, the harder it is to understand. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

GrownUpAndWise

I was just looking into reporting that account as a disruptive SPA after that brutal post on BD's page but I see that you are already on top of it. --Justanother 14:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I can do that kind of thing straight from the rest home, no problem. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Nurse Ratched arrives, quickly discovers where /bishonen has been hiding her meds, and casually injects her with a powerful tranquilizer while marking her chart for ECT tomorrow. Ratchet does a quick headcount and departs to care to other patients. /bishonen continues her careless slumber. At least until her insurance runs out. Sweet dreams. --Justanother 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah yeah. History delete complete (I hope), check it out. I have e-mailed the page owner. Minitrue 21:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Looks good, thanks. Double plus good. --Justanother 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Traditionally one tries to resolve things outside of arbitration before bringing it there. My attempt to talk to you about this was ignored. I am still willing to talk about this. _InBC 21:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignored? You say the thing which is not. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

I still see no impasse in our discussion that warranted arbitration, I responded quickly to that. However it is done, and I will gladly deal with this matter in such a moderated environment. _InBC 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Any ideas gang: active discussion moved to bottom of page

Guess whose use page it was? It is not finished, I do not vouch for it, as you all know I have loads of these pages on the go at the same time, some take months to finish. There are times when I would love access to check user! All suggestions welcome Giano 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Bishonen | talk 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Sweatpea! I didn't know if we were allowed ot do thatas others had edited since- amazing no one noticed the categories were al lackinng their final ] - I must put my banner on it now. Giano 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a limit to how much crap we have to put up with. The IP obviously knows it's bad behaviour, too. Look at its contribs! Would a complete newbie know to go sniffing round userpages, and have such an idea? No. As you say, and as I mention in the revert edit summary, there's no knowing how correct your info is at this stage. The IP certainly can't know it. I checked the later edits, they were only corrections of stuff the IP had messed up, except for the addition of one category (which I put back). Bishonen | talk 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

• Interesting I placed one of my beware tags this is unreliable and unfinished on it on the 17th January several days before the "Anon placed on 24th January in mainspace! So Anon knew exactly what he was doing! Giano 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is Allston - I've never heard of it? Giano 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that having Checkuser would not help; this is too old, I'm pretty sure. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt. Yes, I have informed myself, and it is in fact too old. Pity, that. I can't swallow this as being a a good-faith attempt to improve the mainspace — I think it's pure malice. Bishonen | talk 02:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

The intentional pushing of a button, yes. And by someone who knows it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A random thought from the gallery: should the edits be deleted, as in essence they are a copyright violation as the edit by the IP doesn't attribute Giano as the author, as required by the GFDL? With Bramham Park, the only edits between the IP adding the info and Bish reverting it are minor fixes, and in essence they are all copyvios. Thoughts? Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC) retreats back into the shadows and rejoins other people who watch Giano's contribs to his userspace to see what article will be the next FA :)

You mean I should delete all revisions after MortimerCat? That's a thought. I didn't think of the credit thing and the GFDL—I assumed Giano's work was in fact free to steal once he'd saved it anywhere at all on Misplaced Pages—I removed it only on the principle that it was unsourced and unreliable and the author had even said so. (I won't deny that I wanted to remove it, but the attribution angle didn't occur to me.) OK, I'll remove those suckers. I was lucky the case was so simple—I don't know what I would have done if somebody else had made substantial additions after the IP edit. Been petrified with indecision, probably. As for the next FA, I believe Giano has foresworn producing any more of those, after recent scarring experiences of WP:FAR. Bishonen | talk 08:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

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

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

("V=IR? Do you have a citation to this so-called Ohm's Law? I see that you have a link, but you need to have a citation, and then this 'R=V/I' needs another citation. You can't expect us to accept this original research.") Geogre 10:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sadly User: Ohm would probably have been banned from editing such pages, because of his insistance on own research and citing himself! Giano 10:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in this. I think it's a really dirty thing to do. I ran checkuser on the IP at Bish's request, but it's too old. Raul654 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about that anymore, as you very well know Raul! Giano 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been considering pushing an article of my own to FA level sometime in the next couple of months, and I have to say that what I have been reading about the FA reviewers demanding a footnote reference after every sentence is a serious deterrent to my wanting to do that. This page is probably not where I should be saying it, because I'm preaching to the choir here, but if our most motivated authors are choosing not to create featured content because of idiosyncrasies of the selection process, that is a serious problem. Newyorkbrad 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there is nowher else to say it, unless you want to be shouted down, we are clearly in a minority - so we teo choices write FAs to the standards of others, write mere ordinary pages to out own standards. I am choosing the latter. Giano 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What they are doing, so far as I can see, is to produce their usual excellent articles, but they are just not bothering to ask for the shiny star to be affixed to them. But Medieval cuisine shows how it should be. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And what are you going to expect other people (who aren't experts in Medieval cuisine) to do when someone else edits your article, and follows your style of not citing enough? You don't own them, you know. Say you get three edits adding or changing information that seem reasonably likely; two are good, one is bad. How do you expect someone not yourself to know which of the three to revert and which to keep, if you don't give them sources to compare to? This is not just a hypothetical case, I just blocked an editor who had fun doing exactly that, inserting minor inaccuracies in uncited articles. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sneaky_vandalism - he was doing this since June 2006. If he had done this to something like Jenna Jameson, which is cited up the wazoo, his edits would be easily checked against reliable sources. As is, he got away with it for months. Do you really want him to be able to do that to your featured articles? --AnonEMouse 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribution really helps an article, it is not just policy but a good idea. It allows editors who do not know the subject to competently judge the merits of the contributions of others. _InBC 16:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) For an example, a sentence in Medieval cuisine implies strongly that olive oil was a recommended drink! Is that vandalism? Don't know - maybe it is vandalism, maybe it is a poor turn of phrase, maybe it is even accurate. How is a humble mouse like myself supposed to know where to go to check the veracity of such a statement? Am I just supposed to take the article's word for it? Or am I supposed to read all 6 books mentioned in the references, with no indication of where to look, just in case one of them actually says that? --AnonEMouse 16:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could have tried to simply let your gaze descend to the closest footnote following that statement and checked those pages out. The footnote refers to 4 pages from Scully. Is it really that baffling that two paragraphs and a quote can be covered by such a modest reading assignment?

Peter 00:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And since Bish's talkpage seems to be a more relevant place than the article talkpage to voice concerns about an article issue, here's the passage causing such consternation: "For most medieval Europeans, it was a humble brew compared with common southern drinks and cooking ingredients, such as wine or olive oil."

Peter 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Of course obscure facts like that should be referenced, no one (certainly not me) is arguing otherwise - It is well known facts that can easily be confirmed if not already known and taken for granted that do not need to be cited. Anyway you can have FAs anyway you like them, because the rules no longer apply to me, I am free of FAs and over zealous rules invented often by people who have no need to apply them to their own work - I am talking about proper FAs not articles on "here today gone tomorrow" movie stars and pop songs written using 101 "here today gone tomorrow" internet sites each themselves of dubious quality, Giano 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, what if someone who's not an expert edits the article? Then it won't be reliable? What if they edit and don't give footnotes? Those arguments are, at their best, an argument against Misplaced Pages. After all, what do we do when someone edits the article on Bob Roberts? What do we do when someone edits the article on George W. Bush? Do we have to have footnotes to know the difference? Hey, what if someone edits the footnotes! What if "someone" inserts a bogus reference? Do you think it's even remotely possible to turn out a heavily footnoted article where the footnotes refer to fictitious books? This argument is against an encyclopedia anyone can edit. I also love the implication that someone is advocating not footnoting enough. In fact, I advocate appropriate references. My version of appropriate means some education in the reader. My version means no footnotes, all parentheticals. Your arguments are really, really off the mark and weak. Geogre 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say anon's argument is very much in line with the spirit of Misplaced Pages, and are rather compelling. Attribution is important. _InBC 18:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We are going arownd in ever increasing circles, so I am going away, this is becoming boring, I'll come back when it gets interesting again. Giano 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not keeping Giano properly amused. I can tell you what to do when someone adds a dubious claim to a well cited article. Check their edits against the citation. If they don't agree, the claim is wrong. That works equally well if the claim is bogus or if the source is. That way we don't have to worry whether the editor has a doctorate in theology or is merely diligent at using Google; we don't care if they're an expert, merely if their sources are. If they don't give a citation, that stands out as something that should be cited, tagged, or removed. Misplaced Pages is not reliable in and of itself, specifically because anonymous mice can edit - and don't think I'm saying that's a bad thing, that's the reason I am allowed to be here, after all. However, it does mean that proper attribution is the only thing we have that can give articles that reliability. That doesn't mean citing every sentence, but it does mean that when someone doubts a fact, it is only assuming good faith to believe that doubt, and be able to reference that fact. Frankly, assuming that every educated reader already knows that a 1570 book inspired architects across Europe is common knowledge is attributing quite a lot to common knowledge. --AnonEMouse 19:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not the meaning of "common knowledge" on Misplaced Pages. Please see this userpage. Bishonen | talk 21:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I suppose I have more faith in the power of a college degree, but knowing that Palladianism came from Palladio only required a single Art History class for me. I would have known Palladianism anyway, a bit after my sophomore year, when I hit it in a History of England class. I would have learned it as a senior, if I hadn't learned it as a sophomore or a junion, when I took a class in Europe Between the Wars. I have "learned" that fact a dozen times in college. We do not cite everything. We do rely on good faith. Remember that WP:AGF refers to articles, not taggers or blocks or other things. In fact, Misplaced Pages was the gamble built on the assumption that more people wanted correct information than wanted to vandalize, and we are extremely susceptible to dishonest editors. We always will be. That's the nature of the game. If people want to read undergraduate research papers, they can, but that's not the standard of any encyclopedia. I find them unspeakably insulting. "The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is named after Heizenberg (note)" makes me want to slap someone. How stupid do they think I am? How stupid do they think readers are in general? How stupid are they that they had to go dig up a reference to assure themselves of that? Most articles have no citations. This is a good thing, generally. Those with unusual knowledge need references, but not stickypad citations. Geogre 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything must citable. That doesn't mean it needs to be cited. Some people have problem with this concept. As for what people think of our readers, my guess is that deep down, we all want the encyclopedia to be written for people like ourselves. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just looked in to see if the conversation had taken a perk, or anyone eloquent had looked in - No. So Bishonendearhart, do terminate this because it is going nowhere - we are all agreed we are done with FAs - can't be bothered with all the new malarky and claptrap far too stressful, and insulting to the intelligence. This moment in time heralds the beginning of a brave new era for Misplaced Pages the FAs of AnonEMouse (Jenna Jameson); LuciferMorgan's Christ Illusion and those of a similar mind-frame are obviously the way to go. Sadly my blood pressure these days does not allow for porn queens, and my interest in Christ is confined to mass and praying for eternal redemption - not that I'm admitting to a link between the two. I wish all the new FA writers well - but I can't agree with them, I shall not be joining them on the main page - I will be continuing in my own odd referencing ways - so I think all that needs to be said has been said. Giano 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • With respect, lowbrow or popular culture articles at FAs is not new. The very first archive of FA, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2003 and before, includes Leet, Have I Got News for You, Madonna (entertainer), and Sex Pistols. I have nothing but respect for the many FAs of Giano on European architecture, and Geogre on lesser known English wliterature, at a quick glance. I can only hope to eventually be as skilled and prolific. However, we need more good writing on any subject in the encyclopedia, including the ones that I or LuciferMorgan chose. If we have these subjects at all, they may as well be covered as well as possible, which, in the current way of doing things, means bringing them up to the standard of FA, which does seem to include citations. That is the current standard of the Misplaced Pages community, and it does have reasons behind it. (rephrased, with apologies) --AnonEMouse 06:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here I am, up late to update DYK for the second time today (late both times because no-one else seems to want to do it, even though the next update page was ready to go ages ago) and what do I find? This is not a featured article by any stretch, but it is a nice, concise article, culled from 4 (FOUR) consistent obituaries in broadsheet newspapers, and someone adds tags saying it does not have enough citations and needs cleanup.

Citations? CLEANUP?? Honestly. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moderated my comment above, now the balance of my equanimity has been restored. Obviously it is possible to add refs after every sentence (see John Inman) but I really don't see the point in this case. The only mildly difficult fact in Peter Prendergast (artist) is that he was "recognised as the leading landscape painter in Wales" (by whom? when?) but that is cited (and, on reflection, I suppose I ought to cite "the biggest man-made hole in Europe, like Breughel's Tower of Babel, but in reverse"). But "cleanup"? How, for goodness sake? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - please don't stomp on me, Bishzilla!

Bishzilla stomp on tag spam. bishzilla _ROARR!! 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

As a point of reference, this article could be interesting to "the gang". Daniel Bryant 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to settle an argument with a friend about "dyke," so I looked at dyke. Citations all over the place and tags for "has no sources" to go with every one of them. On the other hand, there are articles like 1992 World Rally Championship season where there is only a box. What the hell is that? Is this a graphic novel or an encyclopedia? Why can't the "we need facts" jerks go beat up on the "here is a box and I cannot finish a sentence" yaboes? Utgard Loki 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC}

Oh Utgard, I do so agree with you. Giano 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just go around all day, hitting the "Random" button. I recommend it to anyone. See what's really in Misplaced Pages. The #1 hit type is probably "footballer" -- usually either 2 lines or 2,000 -- and then "X is a place in Nation the end," and I'm not talking about those Census department things you see for US cities and towns, either. Then we get to the really stomach churning "This is a single by MinorBand released in RecentMonth and here is a picture of it." I released singles, an e.p., and an l.p. in a former band, and hell if I'd expect anyone to look them up here. What the heck could I say about them? "We released this, and it got played on about 110 radio stations, according to tracking reports. We sold all the copies we made of the first pressing, and that netted us a grand total of $280?" Bleck. Then again, I'm not a "footballer." Utgard Loki 12:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we have another truly delicious (fire-breathing, even) citation conflict brewing. Behold! That's what you get for mentioning an FA that doesn't have a citation per sentence...

Peter 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Aloan should have known better than to mention it in the first place - it is like putting up an advert for a candy factory next to a wasp's nest. It only encourages them. I just wish they would write something interesting and show us all how it should be done - lead by example - Yes i know some of them do write and No, I don't want to be pointed to a page on porn stars, pop stars and fruits of said stars' labours - referenced entirely by equally dodgy internet sites Giano 19:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear - I didn't mean to poke the hornets nest. :( The people on the talk page need to read about the apocryphal Marie Therese/Marie Antoinette "cake" incident, (brie?!) and watch the "I Know My Place" sketch.

"I just wish they would write something interesting and show us all how it should be done" - quite. I just stumbled across Wilton House this morning. Such pearls before, um, I had better stop. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Be nice to people: reply to AnonEMouse

Section break retained, obsolete rant removed. Thank you, AnonEMouse. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Continued

Just for chuckles, I think I should point out that I have never stated my credentials, and I hope to never do so. I have a job that some people assume implies those things, but I have said very, very little about that, wish I had said less, and Giano is an absolute cypher. He has never indicated so much that he has a job, much less what it is, and even less where he went to college and how long. The point being that, unlike quite a few people -- and particularly the people demanding to have us respect their authorit-ay, neither of us, and certainly not Bishonen, either, mentions credentials. We point to our work here at Misplaced Pages, which is a different thing, and then only, as Bishonen says, in exasperation. Since I arrived here, I've been annoyed by the pop obsessed younguns at Misplaced Pages shouting "amen" to each other. To me, this is a fight over whether we have articles on these subjects, not whether we have FA's on them. If we get articles on them, they're eligible if they can be properly discussed and analyzed. 90% of the time, they can't. Geogre 11:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, neither you nor Giano is listed at Category:Wikipedians with PhD degrees, so that's good. Utgard Loki 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC) M.S.

Is there a category for "You will have to work out for yourself whether this Wikipedian knows anything about anything"? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What an enormity that is! A category populated by people using userboxes to self-identify their academic credentials is wrong on so many levels that one scarcely knows where to begin. I want an "it's the work, and it's always the work" box. Geogre 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I should have added a P.S., above. Yes, I am an elitest in many ways on content, but that's because I'm such a firm believer in the power of The People. Because I believe that the aggregation of humanity can achieve great things, I think it should never be allowed to settle for half-assed spitballs shot at the screen. I have never believed that anyone or anything "is owed" an article, nor that any contributor automatically has the right to write whatever she or he wishes. Everyone should write encyclopedic content, and I think everyone can. Therefore, "Mikey is a footballer with Slovak Spartan B Community Cultural Center Extension club" is bad. I would be insulting the author if I said, "That's all he can write and all he has to write." Geogre 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

Any ideas would be gratefully received. Cheers. --Joopercoopers 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Taj Mahal"..? Named after that Indian restaurant in Slough, wasn't it? Bishonen | talk 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Don't be so silly Bishonen, it was erected by the Indian Government (circa 1979) to provide a photo-shoot opportunity for the late Princess Diana, and also as a place for very unlovely, and usually ugly people to pose for what they imagine are romantic holiday snaps to bore their friends with at home. The latter should be banned from being photographed anywhere, in fact they should be made to put plastic buckets on their heads when leaving their houses - so they don't spoil other people's photographs taken for the architecture. Giano 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah! thank you O wise one. :-) Joopercoopers 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh... Cthulhu, right? Bishonen | talk 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Aaaahhh! Where Cthulhu? bishzilla _ROARR!! 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Again

Having trouble with another admin - Mel Etitis - who thinks you are not allowed to delete things from your talk page. Rarelibra 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not entitled to remove comments by other users from article talk pages, if I understand this correctly. El_C 23:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This had to do with my own talk page. Rarelibra 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I stand collected. El_C 03:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen - are you saying now that I cannot delete the conversation from my talk page once it is complete? Because as far as I am concerned, it is complete, and there isn't anything derogatory or incorrect with me removing it... ? Rarelibra 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you can, but it's rude. That's not such a mysterious idea, is it? Some things are allowed but are nevertheless derogatory. You won't get punished for them, but they won't do anything for your reputation, either. Lots of things are like that in real life, right? For example, it's not illegal to speak unpleasantly to your neighbors, but it's not nice either. That's how it is with this. To uphold your reputation, to be pleasant, the optimal way to handle your talkpage is to leave stuff on it until you archive the whole page (or archive all but the most recent of it—that's what I do). Replying to messages is nice too. But none of us are always nice, I guess /looks through own talkpage, blushes slightly at sight of roaring dinosaur sockpuppet/, especially when the other person is being rude. I'd hardly bother to reply to a template, I must say. I might even remove it, with an informative edit summary. But it would take a lot before I removed a real human message. Bishonen | talk 01:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

That's where we differ, then. I have been military for 20 years... thus, I learn the "regulations" and what is "permissible" (plus, operate on the oh-so-popular "better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission"). I'm quite sure that if I met someone in real life and had a discussion, then found out our "wiki" identities, I wouldn't change my real-life opinion of them (I see them as separate). But I am also a person who doesn't care if I "step on someone's toes" as long as I am within the rules. So whether or not it is "rude" is all within perception (but a permissible perception! that is why I kept attempting to correct the admin, and solicited your support). He tried to insist that I must keep it on my talk page, when I knew that I didn't have to. You see, my poison is that I am intelligent and operate on logic... thus, the neighbor example for me is that when my neighbor's dog took a dump in my lawn, it is logical that they should have just cleaned it up (I don't own a dog, so it is extremely obvious). I shouldn't have to knock on the door and ask nicely, nor remind them (as it is a duty of owning the dog)... so my answer? I put the crap in a plastic bag and attached it to their doorknob. Problem solved, and surprisingly no more dog crap in my lawn... am I worried about my "rep" with them? Actually, NO. Do looks of distaste bother me? NO. If that makes me rude, so be it (it isn't against the law to be so!). If I remove a human message it means (1) that I read it, (2) that I no longer need it (unlike what I have archived or saved currently - for projects or problems I am still trying to finish, or research, or work out), or (3) that I don't care for it. Does that make me rude? Maybe. I don't care what people think about what I do as long as it is within the law/rule. The times I am outside or violate, I am humble enough to "take my lumps" and admit my mistakes (as I have been blocked for 3RR, etc, of course). So if a guy with a short haircut comes up to you in Chicago and tells you to "put the &$*#! cigarette out" in a harsh tone while you are puffing away underneath a "no smoking" sign, well... it's probably me, and I don't care if you think I am rude. :) So don't take it personal, but I think the conversation is done and I will probably clean my talk page. :) Rarelibra 02:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That suits me. I've been in academe for x years, learning to go by logic and analogy, and I have some trouble with yours. You give several examples of how you think it's proper to be rude for a reason, yet round off your message with rudeness for no reason: telling me the conversation is done, as if I had been needlessly bothering you with my unsolicited opinion. That's more like telling a person chewing gum under a no-smoking sign to put their &$*#! cigarette out. I don't take it personally, you understand, it's just the logic of it. Bishonen | talk 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Point taken. :) Hope to chat with you soon... serious. Rarelibra 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Бинг-Банг

But can be found here. El_C 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Er... anything you say. Bing bang, dear. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Or, in the immortal words of Leslie Phillips, "I say! Ding dong!" -- ALoan (Talk) 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How's your Hebrew today, ALoan? Bishonen | talk 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Fair to non-existent. But surely this is Cyrillic? Is there a kind of Russo-Slavonic Hebrew written thusly? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be בינג-באנג ! El_C 23:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Or, in Swedish, bork bork! Bishonen | talk 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Reminds me of my children's school concerts Giano 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How wonderful that they're so talented! Bishonen | talk 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Is this some kind of Eurovision thing? "Oh, Бинг-Банг, bing bang, ding dong, a בינג-באנג, bork bork!" A sure-fire winner, or my name is not Mikhail Yosef Caneskisson-Smythe. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've listened to the song about 40,000 times now and I'm still not sick of it! El_C 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

<smacks self about the head> I am slow on the uptake, but have just read the relevant articles. The "boyakasha" should have been a give-away. Sigh. His cousin is a professor of psychology, you know. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the Korki Buchek entry is extremely informative. We can probably FAC-it-up with little effort. El_C 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't hold a candle to Swedish Dr. Bombay. Hear and see his masterpiece of inappropriate stereotyping Rice and Curry on Youtube! Oh noes a redlink. Anyway, the Dr. is according to Misplaced Pages also famous in Japan (I admit this was news to me) as Carlito. Bishonen | talk 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Oh, wow, Elsie, I can't believe it! Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is already on WP:FAC! You'd better go give your expert opinion. Bishonen | talk 04:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Keeping sewage out of the wine

Hi - I'm interested in any comments you (or anyone watching this page) have concerning User:Rick Block/Keeping sewage out of the wine. It's an essay, there's a talk page, I assume you know what to do. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Community discussion

• WP:ZN

FYI. I'm posting here because we have orders from on-high to make this as widely known as possible, and this is a well-watched User talk. It's both a "proposed" and "already done" merger of V, NOR, and RS. It occurred, and then got held-up when Jimbo got involved. Long story. Five months of editing to slog through. But I'm sure of interest to people. Marskell 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have neither the time nor the energy to read all of that, can we just have a brief (very brief) synopsis of the outcome - altogether too tiresome and fruitless to join these discussions. Giano 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, as briefly as possible: Misplaced Pages:Attribution is a merger of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, originally suggested by SlimV, and subsequently worked on by a few hundred people. Reasons: "verifiability" is actually a misnomer; V (a policy) relied on the often sloppy RS (a guideline) for its explanations; NOR and V are outcomes of the same question, viz. "can this be attributed to a reliable source?"; one page instead of three will be enormously easier to manage.

Long story begins when Jimbo notices five days ago. Slim had informed him and the mailing list last October, but it was forgotten about apparently. Jimbo has requested: "a broad community discussion on this issue" (here) followed by "a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results" (here). Note, ATT is not meant to change policy at all, but to make it more concise and maintainable. Marskell 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"V - RS - NOR - ATT" somebody please explain to me what he is talking about. Giano 14:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's the duty of the hostess. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:ATT are shortcuts to pages in Misplaced Pages space, namely Vandalism Verifiability, Reliable Sources, No Original Research, and Attribution. It's quite touching to see the country cousin trying valiantly to get his bearings at the party! Bishonen | talk 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't bother to read all of those things, if one wants to stay up to date one would have to read them allevery day, as someone is always tinkering about with them, then I would not have time to write anything. Just tell me when it is all sorted out, then I will shout if I don't agree. I never use hiroglyphics or symphonics or whetever daft English word it is to describe all this initial talk Giano 15:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I have just linked the shortcuts at first mention. Marskell 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

"All articles without references should be deleted". User:Worldtraveller actually advocates this exact idea on his user page: "Delete all articles which are unreferenced, six months from now."

"OR is not a lack of sources." Indeed. I like the latest sum-up on this: "Although everything in Misplaced Pages must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed." (One of Slim's nuggets.) Of course, what happens in practice is indeed more important than what the pages say; policy should reflect best practice, not general practice. Over the now nearly six months of debate re WP:ATT, putting to rest the descriptivist argument ("well hey, people already cite Usenet, so why shouldn't policy let us cite Usenet?") was one of the hardest parts. At one point, people were considering writing a weakened exception for pop culture articles into the policy...*shudders*. Marskell 18:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

in my earliest wiki-days way back in May 2004 (a life-time ago) I used to write a quick page to fill a red link and never add references (it was not required) unless it was what I think of as a "proper page" - and I still stand by every word I've ever written, and if I could remember all the pages could easily find references to support them. However, I expect somewhere in all those pages I have given the odd architect the wrong Christian name, or have a date a couple of years out. I do not think those pages should be deleted - but I know what I am talking about (said modestly) a lot of editors here do not; and that is a problem. I hesitate to disagree with Geogre but I can see where "World" is coming from on this one. BUT let us be quite clear I do NOT think every verb needs to be linked directly to a page number - because that is meaningless. I frequently (Hannah springs to mind) use reference books that were printed 80 or 90 years ago in very small numbers - how easy would it be to cite "Crewe Vol III p 245" who could hope to check it - without the help of a very flexible credit card? (Incidentally there were only two volumes of that work) - so my point is there always has to be an element of trust, which is the reason I was so angry about the "Essjay affair" - otherwise we are going to have to say if a reference book is not currently in W H Smith it is ineligible for citing on wikipedia. I don't know the answer - and if I do, I don't like it because it will spell the end of wikipedia being the !encyclopedia anyone can edit". I post this here because my days of arguing are over, no one ever agrees with me anyway Giano 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

As far as Worldtraveller's User page goes, I'd sum it up as an idea to light an enormous fire under Misplaced Pages's ass. I appreciate the sentiment, even if I disagree with the specifics. Regarding Giano's sentence on trust: here I agree fully. There's an enormous element of trust in other users required to judge an article under review (at AfD or FAC or whatever). I don't think it healthy or unhealthy—it's inevitable, and I see it as one element of RewardReputation that the project requires. But it's fraught with a lot of difficulty given the nature of Misplaced Pages and it's emphasis on "anyone." Essjay is the obvious example, but you can find a smaller example everyday. Antandrus has a "verifiable" doctorate. Well, I don't know that. I don't know who Antrandrus is. S/he doesn't know who I am. (Not to be picky Antandrus, just using an example in front of me :). Marskell 21:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My view is that all pages should have a list of references which will verify the facts on the page. If a fact is contraversial, outlandish or a very new theory then a specific cite to its source should be made. The Pope is a Roman Catholic; William I fought at Hastings in 1066 and Palladio was an unfluential architect do not need to be specifically cited, just a book which agrees with those facts mentioned in a reference section at the foot of the page is sufficient. Credentials for the anonymous are meaningless so lets not have them at all. Giano 22:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the books, Giano. (Some ways up. As usual, everybody and their aunt has already posted by the time I've written some reply to somebody, in this case principally to Antandrus.) Some of the people advocating coverall inline citing seem to assume that that would mean any editor will then be able to check any fact with a mouseclick. I don't have any sources as exclusive as yours, but you may remember I've written an FA which is principally verified through books written in a language spoken by 9 million people. That page contains quite a few counter-intuitive and surprising facts. They're cited, yes, but, in practice, nearly all readers are going to have to take what I say on trust anyway. And that's with me following all the rules. Anyway, no, I don't think I'll weigh in, Antandrus. I'm too slow and laborious a writer to do any good in a big free-for-all. It really bugs me when I spend half a day penning (keyboarding) a paragraph, and 15 minutes after I post it, somebody like geogre replies with two screens of much more cogent arguments... grrrrr... ROARRR... where Tokyo!? ... sorry, where was I? I appreciate Marskell turning up to sing a siren song , but I'm trying to write a sandbox article here, and there are enough interruptions without diving into the Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Community discussion. Not planning to FAC it, no... I'm tired of FAC. It's not so much verifiability issues in my case, as the tone on FAC altogether. (One reviewer, when I took issue with what seemed outright hostility, assured me that it was nothing personal, simply the FAC culture nowadays!) And the joys of "having" a FA — in the sense of being scolded for laziness if you don't "maintain" it, and scolded for "ownership" if you do — are definitely overrated anyway. Being the main contributor to an actually controversial article, which mine are not, must be far worse in this regard, too — it's got to be "You don't own it, you know!" and "The main contributor hasn't bothered to maintain it!" all day long. Altogether, writing FAs can too easily turn you into a common criminal in the eyes of others. How many times has Giano, who never even mentions his massive FA contributions, been told that he expects, nay, demands, a "free pass" (pah!) because of them? Nice little wrinkle, that, don't you think? Anyway, an article's an article, with or without the star. If it's good, it's a good contribution to the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

Could not agree more, at the end of the day, a FA is only a FA because a load of people (many of whom never write a FA) say it can be, likewise it can be FARCd because the same people say it can't. I an tired of aruging with these people let them run the FA side of things if they want to. At the end of the day anything on Misplaced Pages that is good is good and anything less is usually appalling. Like many people I can recognise the good pages without having to look for a silly little star - so who needs FAs? Giano 22:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

You are bound to know

I've asked the owneres of some websites for permission to upload some images of country houses - so they have to fill in a form or something - anyone know what I am supposed to do to prove they have given permission? Giano 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody answered this query in all this time? Sheesh. That's not the way the salon is supposed to work. Image copyright is my least favorite subject, sorry. But yes, to the best of my belief there is something like a form to a fill in, and there are right ways and wrong ways of doing it... to make sure the permission sticks, for good, I suggest you contact a Commons admin who knows what's what. Raul comes to mind. Or, hmm... Jkelly. Zscout370. Or check out this list of Commons admins to look for people you have confidence in. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry - I have been looking at masterpieces, like Hairy Maclary (from Donaldson's Dairy). I wonder how many of these literary gems I have been overlooking for all this time. I see it has been eviscerated, with learned contributions by the sainted Filiocht cast to the four winds. See also general moan on User:Geogre's talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Gah! Wikistress!

(tries to think about kittens) The Land 09:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Anythingspossiblepolicyiswhatwedo. YoufedupwithFACtoohuh? Bishonen | talk 10:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Indeed. Can I buy you a space bar? ;) The Land 10:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

TheideaofwritinglikethisistoexpresswikistressI'dratherhaveaMarsbar. I'verepliedtoyourquery here. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC). ExpressandevokeImean. :-P Bishonen | talk 10:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

A w(h)ine bar? I'll have a Gallo Gallon. Geogre 10:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The plaintive cry of the last standing deletionist

So, can anyone assess this other than me and the author of the article? It's about Brooks Landing, which is a shopping mall. Diff is here. Utgard Loki 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wh-wh- ?! Hey, buddy, I am the archangel of deletionism, so don't flatter yourself. :-) Looks like somebody got there already. The old "it's a mall, but it's the first one in and so it's notable" argument don't even waddle, much less fly. Geogre 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)