Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bunchofgrapes (talk | contribs) at 02:57, 8 September 2006 (→ok). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is Bunchofgrapes' talk page. Click the little tab up there to leave me a new message.

Quote of the week:
I won't dignify Bunch of Grapes' ridiculous accusations of "chilling dissenting voices" with any description other than "stupid". --Tony Sidaway

Archive one (to Nov 2005) • two (Nov to Dec) • three (Dec to Jan 2006) • four (Jan to Mar) • five (Mar to Apr) • six (Apr to May) • seven (May to Jun) • eight (Jun to Jul) • nine (Jul) • ten (Jul to Aug) • recall (Aug) • eleven (Aug to Sep)

To spin the thread

And Extraordinary Machine is making faithful edits? Do you see me fully reverting him? No. And the new thread I recently posted on Talk:Cool (song) suggests that we are decreasing the number of issues being held. Yet again, you are out to get me. You were told very clearly to leave me alone. If you bother me any further, I will open an RFC describing all your critical and intentional-stalkish behaviour. I decline the ban because I was about to make an edit reverting myself anyway. Don't believe me? Go see. 64.231.154.3 21:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This borders on a personal attack; please don't forget about your attack parole. You can't decline the ban; I am not out to get you but I am out to give EM a hand, since he is being so upstanding about not enforcing the RfAr remedy against you on a page he is involved with. Do I think Extraordinary Machine is making "faithful" edits? Yes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And that I'm not? Bias, and because you don't like me. Ban rejected. (But I do have nothing more to edit today. If I do within the next 48 hours though, too bad for you, and I'm opening a complaint about your intentional stalking. One way or another, you will leave me alone.) 64.231.154.3 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, you can't say that I'm being disruptive because I don't agree with his views; he's being disruptive for not agreeing with mine. It's not up to you to decide who's right and who's wrong, especially since he's introducing factual inaccuracy, but you wouldn't know; he's always making faithful edits, isn't he? 64.231.154.3 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

From the little I have seen, yes, Extraordinary Machine is always making good-faithed edits, yes. Not all of us edit out of vengeance, you know. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with one of EM's views; lucky him. As a result, I'm going to change Cool (song) and will note as such on the talk page. At least this scratches away three of our arguments; three left. Progress, eh? I'd barely call this disruptive — more like advancement. At least the two of us can remedy issues faster than before. It's all part of the nice chain. Anyway, I could care less if you block this IP briefly. The library has some lovely new material that will withdraw the block immediately. I've also got to go downtown now, so enjoy your evening and treat yourself to some puffer fish (after all, it's not an insult according to the RFAr). =] 64.231.154.3 22:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit out of vegenance on Cool (song)? Please think before you talk, because it'll make you look like you know what you're talking about. 64.231.154.3 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Banned from this page

Hollow Wilerding is hereby banned from this user talkpage for a week, following the obnoxious posts above, which testify to HW's failure to grasp what an arbitration remedy is. Have you even read those remedies? Do you suppose it's up to you to keep right on shouting abuse and threats and announcing that you'll do as you please? That kind of behaviour was what the RFAR was about. I encourage all users to revert Hollow Wilerding on sight on this page and others she has been banned from. It is unfortunately difficult to block her, as usual with people who don't have the decency to edit logged in, but systematic reverts will do just as well, assuming Bunchofgrapes doesn't want to simply semiprotect his talkpage. And a warning: the way you're going at the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement page, you're heading for a ban from that too. Incidentally, don't even think about pestering me on my page. It's semiprotected. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, Bish. I took the liberty of recorded your ban at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. By the way, I've got no compunctions about doing short-term anon-only blocks on the range. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any compunction either, and this is one thing that's gotten better since January. Let's try that. Anons plus account creation blockecd, right? Say a couple of hours each time? It's a big range. And you'd better tell me exactly how to write the range in this case. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

64.231.0.0/16 I believe is the best that can be done; I was thinking of starting out with account creation allowed and seeing if her determination to evade extended to that degree. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BEANS--he/she is probably reading this page, so describing your plans in detail here is contraindicated. Newyorkbrad 00:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Brad, we're well aware of it, thanks. It doesn't matter. Bishonen | talk 00:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Also -- a total side point but a pedantic matter I just can't help exploring -- that's not what WP:BEANS is actually about, though it is very frequently mis-cited in a similar manner. WP:BEANs is about not telling people not to do things that they wouldn't have thought about doing on their own. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Bean fully rejected. Newyorkbrad 16:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening at Cool (song). It's admins like you who make Misplaced Pages a disruption-free place and renew my faith in the whole policies/guidelines/dispute resolution "system". I'm sorry for all the fuss this has caused. Extraordinary Machine 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a better idea, could I suggest we just dump and divert all dealings on this subject to User:Charles Matthews who had so much good and wise advice on how I should have dealt with the problem. Then we may all learn from example Giano | talk 16:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Shh. Let sleeping dogs lie. Extraordinary Machine, you're welcome. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your feed back

I appreciate your feed back www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 17:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Flagging my anon edits as by me?

Bunchofgrapes, I forgot to login before my last edit to Belton House ("re-wiki British..."). Is there any way I can mark that edit as by me? Thanks very much! Cxw 20:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. You could make a null edit (just add a space somewhere) and mention that it was you in your edit summary, though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Raul has already reverted it. I can't say I see much point in the linking you've inserted several times, either. Please see Misplaced Pages:Make only links relevant to the context. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC). PS, sorry, my mistake, I see Raul actually reverted the next edit along. But my point about context stands. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Mace

I found my mace. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

I don't quite see how the thin, bright red lace-like covering over the shell of the seed of the Myristica fragrans can help here, but I'm happy for you. Are you baking? Who are you baking? Do you need cloves? Cloven hooves? (yes I'm semi-back now) KillerChihuahua 11:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Arf arf, KC, it's very good to have you back. I just bean 'em in the noggin with a whole nutmeg myself. Bish, you should have just let that clever and handsome User:Seventeenth do the talking. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Everybody's clever and handsome on the Intarweb. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

Everybody may be handsome, except for those crazy enough to post photos, but I'm not seeing everyone being clever. I have redacted a bit of your post just in case there is anybody around who is just that not clever. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

FAC failed

Hiya. I noticed in looking back at a couple of pages that had been on FAC, star and Vancouver, that you had placed the failed notice after only five or six days. Star was surprising because User:RJHall was very obviously willing to continue working. Is it no longer two weeks? What's the criteria for deciding it's failed? Marskell 18:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes doesn't fail articles; just puts the template there - User:Raul654 does :). RN 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I had guessed as much, but Raul rarely replies when I post on his talk (*sob*) so I thought BoG might know the score. I find it very sketchy looking at it after a while--some closed after five days and others up five weeks. Marskell 18:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it takes some getting used to - after awhile you might see it as pretty accurate. Anyway, you can ask him to extend it a few days - he almost always does... RN 18:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

"If they haven't gathered much support...". I hope that doesn't literally mean the word "support" has been placed in bold. Star had support in that it had a contributor working on it and a reviewer criticizing. Marskell 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it shouldn't mean that, but imagine youself plowing through the decision-making process on 30 or so FACs week after week and picture how fatigue might occassionally let one slip by. Would you like me to go ask Raul to relist it? I don't think I actually have any more sway there than you. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

It might not be scaling well. Nothing does. If Raul starting promoting a lot of articles that a lot of people disagreed with, I'd worry; as long as errors are on the early-delisting side, I'm not too concerned, since trying again a couple of weeks from now is no big deal, whereas once FAC'd, the de facto waiting time before you can realistically FARC is, what, six months or something? Also, unlike FARC, FAC is explicitly not so much supposed to be an article-improvement drive -- ideally the articles are brought up as a candidate already in tip-top shape. So the thing about there being a "willing contributor" doesn't apply as strongly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

And I am. I don't know--I just don't feel they're actually being looked at closely when 21 can be removed at once. Raul rarely even edit summaries when removing (promoting or removing?--I don't know, because he doesn't say). If it were, as you suggest, simply cruft being removed the page, I would agree it's not worrisome, but I don't have confidence it always is. Marskell 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreal Engine

I noted in the talk page a few days ago that I was starting to lean towards an AfD. At the time, I was hoping that there'd end up being a consensus of sorts that, yes, the edits made are necessary to avoid copyvio and RS issues, but three separate users and/or IP address ranges have now reverted blindly back, including totally useless bits that appear to be there just to exactly copy the unrealwiki page (somewhat ironic in light of the copyvio issue), at which point I could continue to whittle down the article.

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

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

I protected, if you want to go for an Afd it would be lovely, but with three or more people adding content it may end up right back where it is now. Try clue-whacking for a bit, see if they can read policy pages eh? KillerChihuahua 20:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

ok

ok understandable. but i shall be vindicated. Thanks hun.Courtney Akins 02:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't call me hun, please. Just join the conversation on Talk:Early conceptions of the Channel Tunnel and bring your sources. Thank you. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

i listed the sources on the article tahnks.Courtney Akins 02:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

People have more questions. Like which source the Jane Austen info is from and how a plan in the 1830s could have involved King's Cross Station, built in 1851. Go over there and help out. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)