This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
The state of being rabid does indeed come from having rabies, so you'd best keep out of Darwinbish's way. The person I myself bit is now
blocked, which, considered per
WP:ROPE, is surely a pity. For what could be more economically illustrative of our (or Shakespeare's) problems than her own words? The statement she has already posted on the RfAR page, for instance, provides a kind of shortcut to the heart of the matter. I plan to argue this with the little Futzilla as soon as I have time to spare, i.e.
WP:NOTNOW.
Bishonen |
talk12:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
Of course,
hydrophobia is indicative of and an alternate name for rabies - what erudite jesters we are...!
The hopefully soon to be opened SAQ Arbitration case should not, I feel, become the NinaGreen Arbitration case - the issue is far too long standing for the focus to be on the most recent focus of advocacy/pov issues; I am hoping that you as an established custodian of that article can provide some historical oversight (pre or contemporary with Smatprt?) of the concerns. (Do I now end this with some reference to Bishzilla? Your removal of others examples has somewhat restricted my understanding of your talkpage protocols...)
LessHeard vanU (
talk)
12:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Flashing her most reassuring smile at the little Less, Bishzilla comes towards him to give him a hug. Watches sadly as he disappears over the hills. ] Little user come back! Need big hug! Remember hugging protocols!
bishzillaROARR!!22:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
If I wanted to
blow a raspberry at someone on the internet, how would I go about communicating that in writing? How would you spell it? PHTTHPTH? Someone needs to come up with a spelling and create a meme so that everyone on the internet knows what you are doing when you type that.
Tex (
talk)
21:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure that this is legal, and even if it were it should not be mentioned in polite company (therefore, this page is fine...)
LessHeard vanU (
talk)
12:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
THIIBBBIT would work. However, in my experience, the more time-honored "pppppppppppppppbbbbbbbllllht!" is just as effective; this form may have the bs between the p section and the l section omitted. Remember that the raspberry, or Bronx cheer, is an unvoiced linguolabial trill. As such, while specific spelling is open to interpretation, repeated consonants are a must. In this day of modern technology, there is always the linking or sending of a sound file, as well, which will leave no doubt as to the nature of your communique, even for the more obtuse. I trust I have been of some minor assistance.
KillerChihuahua?!?Advice14:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Sententiously :] Bishonen is regrettable compound of all worst features of all her socks, little Elen. Tetchy, difficult personality! Naughty 'shonen always embarrass easy-going popular Zilla! Whole family hopeless! [Bishzilla slouches off, grumbling. Somehow doesn't seem so easy-going today! ]
bishzillaROARR!!00:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC).
Bishzilla returns to make a final point: ] As for 'shonen bias, need seen to be believed! Look
how many ways is biased!
bishzillaROARR!! 00:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC). [Bishzilla finally leaves. Bishonen considers topic banning the sour monster from her page. Sighs. Fixes the link. ]
Bishonen |
talk00:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC).
regarding phonetics
My grandfather, who served in the Indian Army under Auchinlek, once witnessed a discussion between two aged gentlemen at the Officers Club who were insisting upon their interpretation of the of the subject matter. One insisted that, phonetically, it should be represented as "Baaa-room" while the other remained adamant that "Bar-ooom" was the better approximation. This discourse was eventually interrupted by a young officer who, in attempting to draw the situation to a conclusion, noted that each vowel in the word had equal prominence and the correct pronunciation was "barroom". Silence ensured, while each of the ancients contemplated this new opinion. Finally, one stirred and said, "Bright young fellah, no doubt, but I rather fancy he has never heard an elephant fart..."
LessHeard vanU (
talk)
23:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Ha!
I must have inadvertently deleted the "parties" template on the workshop page. I don't really think anybody would mistake me for an arbitrator.
Tom Reedy (
talk)
03:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve!" I think WP policies guarantees I will keep those promises!
Tom Reedy (
talk)
06:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"You all did see that on the Lupercal Bishonen thrice presented him with kingly robes, which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?" Two more to go... :P MastCellTalk17:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
That's "genuwine", Big Rex. But don't feel bad, I missed it in the caption, too. Fixing. Oh, I hope you enjoyed
this, before Shell Kinney removed it. You're in there too, somewhat. The author seemed upset to lose such a masterpiece of raillery, but I think Shell did him a BIG favour. In fact I had some thoughts of reverting her, but I guess I'll stay nice for these last few days of arbitration. Nice-ish.
Bishonen |
talk04:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC).
I thought it was spelled
Ginuwine, in honor of the spokesman for Adult Chocolate Milk (a 40-proof vodka-based version of chocolate milk, presumably marketed to people who don't want to be bothered pouring vodka into chocolate milk themselves). MastCellTalk06:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I copied the caption, honest guv (my excuse and I'm sticking to it). Thanks for reminding me, I did spot that invective before Shell expunged it, although I was clearly treated far too leniently for the heinous crime of adopting you and your supplementary proposal. Never mind, I'm roundly battered somewhere else on that page for having the temerity to suggest a bunch of principles that almost everybody seemed to agree with. And while I remember, your point at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop#Upon editors compliance with the standard model of interactions is well made, and the argument so compelling that I gladly concede (being threatened with the Darwinbish always does the trick). Hmmmm, now there's an idea for a Remedy. --
RexxS (
talk)
05:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
You adopted me? Daddy, daddy!!!! Er, you do realise the socks go wherever I go? (With the fortunate exception of Bishzilla, who always prefers moving in with her
faithful manager, or taking a nap in the cosy
Great Pacific Garbage Patch). Still, I hope you have a big house. I bet young darwinbish is looking forward to helping out with the remedies in that bitey case.
Bishonen |
talk15:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC).
Fortunately the house is so large that you could even fit Jimbo's ego into it. Your socks will be very useful indeed for executing the necessary remedies. 'Zilla's breath will be invaluable in clearing Tom's drive; and the darwinbish will make short work of terminating with extreme prejudice those who are foolish enough to refer to us dinosaurs as 'toys'. Did I miss anything else of importance in that case? --
T-RexxS (
talk)
04:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I only just discovered the article today, and was cleaning it up. When I attempted to move it, I discovered it had been moved to the lower case "s" in 2004. I could find no reason for it. Thanks for moving it back. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'00:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
While we're on the issue, when all this
frivolous diversion is done and dusted, can I expect both of you to head over to
Coffee and do some content work? Cas and I have been struggling for the past year to get that into shape for FA. --
RexxS (
talk)
00:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the pretty latte, Rex! Content work? A half-forgotten concept! I'll take a shot at it.. eventually.. I hope. I've got another diversion first: doing the footnotes for my mum on Swedish wikipedia. Trickier than you might think! Meanwhile, why don't you inquire at the
darwinbish's place? Now there's a caffeine freak!
Bishonen |
talk15:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC).
SAQ
Much as I can understand your urge to comment
[1], perhaps it would be better to just not provoke her into further replies, don't you think? I mean, it's not as if further refutations like this would be likely to either teach her something, or tell anybody else something new, is it? Just a thought :-)
Fut.Perf.☼14:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Bish: Why have you written your latest evidence section in green? It provides a lot of discomfort to the pedantic clerk in me, but, really, I'm just curious as to why you did it :P.
AGK [
•13:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
To unmask the people who don't read my evidence, because there's an explanation in there, AGK! :-P Did you happen to notice that there are a couple of green bits in my "real", original evidence section also—the one that's not about Smatprt? All my green text has the same function: to look different from the rest. To look new and green. See, I disapprove strongly of people adding to their original text without indicating that "this was written later, and refers to stuff that has happened after my original evidence." That is information I want, when I read other people's evidence. It makes things much clearer. But I usually don't get it: people chop and change, remove and add, and mostly don't even date the changes! The more I read such
palimpsest evidence, the more discomfort it causes the pedantic editor in me. So much so that I wanted to make my own additions really different, as different as possible. Proper dates! Green dye!
Lots of reasons! Still uncomfortable? If you are, I suggest a non-green way of doing it, which you're very welcome to implement: wash out the green dye and give those bits a different font instead. That's beyond my skill, or I'd do it myself.
Bishonen |
talk14:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
Let dino help. Little user should put:
span.bish { color: black; }
into user's monobook.css or vector.css or what skin they in. Refresh cache like you told to. Then they see 'Shonen's evidence in glorious Technicolor black. Other colours on request. --
T-RexxS (
talk)
16:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Uhhh.. er.. And that will provide me with different fonts to use? Big Rex been partaking illegal substances or something? [Oh dear, she's channelling 'Zilla again. Little 'shonen tries to picture how much weed would be required to mellow out a Tyrannosaurus Rex. A haystack appears before her inner eye. Giggles. ]
Bishonen |
talk16:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
Was really for Little Tony (wanted black). Little Big Shonen want fonts as well? 'z easy:
Yes, I thought of mentioning Little Tony to AGK as well (Tony uses green to say "It's me"), but figured he was probably combobulated enough already. AGK, that is. Font family..? But Rex, to play, I need to see what fonts I have. Doesn't look like so many.. ? Or is it a big family? (Any darwinsocks in it?) If I put script in monobook, will it do its own playing? (A little scary, that notion.) Or how can I choose font? Entering very difficult territory here!
Bishonen |
talk18:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
Stop asking such stupid questions, 'shonen! Embarrassing the smart twins! Just melt into the wallpaper, I can't keep order in this entire dumb family! Too much work!
darwinbishBITE18:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
Half outraged, half amused. ] Well, 'ark at 'er! Bishapod!!!! This is all your fault! Lock your naughty sock in a closet or something!
Bishonen |
talk18:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
Your woes are now legend
Hi, Bishonen, I probably don't have any distinct identity among the WP legions, but when I need amusement I visit the adventures here. Thought of you when I read
this piece by Adam Gopnik in the current New Yorker. Search "Shakespeare."
Cynwolfe (
talk)
14:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hehe. Speaking of fame and the power of stupid, I'm still not over the disappointment of
thiscase failing to escape from the confines of Wikipedia to lead the other media a merry dance. That would have been an awfully big adventure. But too many people were determined it wouldn't happen, I guess. Anyway, do feel free to join in the adventures, meet all the nutcases! Just look out for the more alarming of the socks, they bite.
Bishonen |
talk20:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC).
Yes, exactly! That is indeed what I want. Can you arrange it, dear Lady Rollbacker? I know you and mr Wales are ... close.
Bishonen |
talk20:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC).
All this Shakespeare business is nonsense, it's well known in senior academic circles (such as those which I inhabit) that all 'his' works were written by none other than my forbear Phimosis Bonquebuster, 3rd Earl of Scrotum – a very close personal friend and “intimate” of the Virgin Queen herself.
Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (
talk)
19:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
There's only one answer to that sort of nonsense at ARBSAQ. And it's over there on the right. As Eric Idle sang, "When you're chewing on life's gristle, give a little whistle ..." --
RexxS (
talk)
01:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I bet they were nice. [Casts a stern eye on the darwinbish, still chewing. ] Are they a suggestion for a user RfC? Thanks, but I don't think I will. RfC's are pretty woeful. (Darwinbish, if you're going to eat all the cupcakes that show up around here, you'd better learn to bake, that's all.) As Woody Allen sang,
"Enjoy yourself, enjoy yourself, it's later than you think".. "
Bishonen |
talk18:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC).
No, an RfC/U hadn't occurred to me. I was just doing what everybody should do when they see ridiculous allegations being made: give Bish cupcakes! I'll make a fresh batch and deliver them on a tall table. How high can the little terror reach? --
RexxS (
talk)
04:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It pains me to see that the absurd allegations brought against you have driven you into a Wikibreak. Although there's no RFC against you, I think this would still be an appropriate time to follow that grand tradition of thanking Bishonen for her hard work as an administrator and awarding her cupcakes!
Heimstern Läufer(talk)06:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Block
Since I've been handing out blocks left and right:
You have been given a block.
Blocks increase cohesion, serve to lift heavy burdens, and help making sure that everything functions smoothly. Therefore, have one! Thank you for editing. :-)
Fut.Perf.☼16:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
So it doesn't look like it... I don't think the restrictions were that onerous as such (Coren might have called them more ridiculous than harmful). What Jack wanted was surely to be trusted, at last, after all this time and all his good work; and, therefore, to that end, to have no restrictions.
When the ArbCom weighs good against bad consequences of their actions and sanctions (as I hope they sometimes do), they seem to me always to underestimate the trust factor, and also the power of wiki-friendship. They are a little myopic and oblivious that way, as are so many other wikipedians. I bet they were surprised, healthily so, to see John Vandenberg blank his pages over this. And the worst thing Risker and Coren did may have been to radicalise the famously mild RexxS and drive him out on a limb.
[6] This a T-Rex, mind you, and an object of Bishzilla's (admittedly wide-ranging) romantic interest!
[7]Bishonen |
talk13:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC).
Ah well, it was worth a go. I suspect there are some in the community who will never forgive. I do wonder though - I think the vote would have been close. Not the wholehearted endorsement Jack's looking for, but close.
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
22:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Go further, just what was promised; and given that the old accounts are scuttled, there's no reason for them to be blocked. Damned,
Jack Merridew22:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
A/R/E request
I just noticed your Enforcement request. I'm unsure of the propriety of commenting there, but the IP-editors and new accounts popping up on the FAC review page are also pretty blatant signs of off-wiki coordination. The new user account
Sucamilc is registered mere hours after it was nominated for FAC, but in the first edit finds their way to the FAC page and cites Wikipedia guidelines at me. The IP editor 72.234.212.189(
talk·contribs·WHOIS) exhibits remarkable familiarity (with a sadly biased interpretation, but still) with the article's history over “4 years”, and their manner of writing is eerily familiar, which makes me suspect it is an instance of block-evasion or socking. (131.118.144.253(
talk·contribs·WHOIS) is just
BenJonson who's forgot to log in)
I'm expecting more of these to pop up, as indications are the several little web forums and mailinglists they keep will consider the current article achieving FA as some kind of ultimate defeat to be disrupted at all costs. --
Xover (
talk)
08:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Xover. You'll just have to use your native wit and make the call yourself. All my years on Wikipedia, I've enjoyed the good fortune of being able to avoid
WP:AE. (Didn't know how lucky I was. Horrible template.) Socking technically belongs on some other board, but I don't see anything improper about presenting it together with the personal attacks and such. I agree about the signs of off-wiki coordination. If you'd put the accounts and signs into my Enforcement request (now newly spruced up), it'll be in convenient form for me to take to a checkuser. Could be worth trying.
Bishonen |
talk08:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC).
Could you find some evidence suggesting which sockmaster is behind them? In that case, it would be worth filing a CU request at
WP:SPI. The BenJohnson request can probably be handled separately.
Fut.Perf.☼09:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
While I do see some echoes of Nina's prose style in the IP's comments, I don't really see enough to point any fingers. From the prose it could equally well have been Smatprt, but he's been rather meticulous about adhering to his topic-ban (as he understood it), and absent clear evidence to the contrary I really wouldn't expect that from him. A quick check of WHOIS for the IP doesn't particularly suggest anyone either. If I'd had anyone specific in mind I'd probably take it straight to SPI, but I fear it's far too inconclusive. I will however post the above comment to the Enforcement request as at least a point of information. If it stays as calm as it has been the last few hours I'll be a happy camper, but I'm seriously worried there will be an influx of similar stuff that will essentially sink the FAC. --
Xover (
talk)
17:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see the result of your AE request at
WP:AE#BenJonson. It seems that the problem is now under control. If not, open a new request. This is a sufficiently obvious problem that even random admins will probably assist, even without another AE. You only need AE if you think topic bans are required. Thanks,
EdJohnston (
talk)
16:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Any guest is cordially invited to improve the caption of the image. Are you there, Swedophile?
Someone can always be relied on to lower the tone: Thanks Eve, nice apple, said Adam, but er… aren't you supposed to get your kit off?
As usual, Bishonen's pet is trying to get his nose into the food basket.
But, My Lady, I was asking for your cherry, not your apple.
You look like some sort of Nordic heathen, so make sure you eat it with your mouth closed and keep that nasty, unhygenic animal out of my Harrods picnic hamper.
Bishzilla eats all the naughty little vikings. ] Yum, little viking users! Flavourful! Been long time! Where
Sleipner? Zilla partial to taste of eight-legged horses! Where good friend
Fenris wolf monster?
bishzillaROARR!!14:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
The dropped apple turns into a bathtub draining counter-clockwise through a vortex over the plug hole. Bishonen is impressed. Clever old Famously! With a scream, Little Stupid drains through the vortex and disappears. Oh-oh! Get him back! Now!
Bishonen |
talk14:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC).
Fortunately, Famously is accustomed to removing littl'uns from plumbing and quickly unscrews the
waste trap, allowing a rather dishevelled 'poddie to run free once more. --
Famously Sharp (
talk)
20:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Is 'Please post messages below' a request or an instruction? Either way, Chère, I'll comply. I'm back from my much-needed wikibreak and ready to get to work. As a gesture of solidarity with Gold Hat, I've made my own sock to partition my editing & watchlist. Taking a leaf from the twins, I thought it would be useful to have an avatar that could be a little more 'radical' when necessary. Many thanks for the
inspiration! --
Famously Sharp (
talk)
01:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Darwinfish, a great admirer of Famously Mild, runs off in horror when he sees the scary fishing rod page. ] Yikes! Where did good-hand account go!?
darwinfish02:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC).
Still around
Thanks for the note. I've been inactive, but I might get around to doing something on Wikipedia when I have time.
Yes, I'm okay -- sore from walking 15 km to get home from the office because the trains stopped running, but okay -- but other than massive inconvenience and some isolated structural damage Tokyo was okay, unlike those poor people up in Sendai and Miyagi prefecture.
Personally, I was astonished at how fast Wikipedia whipped up an entry on the disaster, and how, ironically enough, I knew too little -- despite being in the middle of the thing -- to reliably contribute. --
Calton |
Talk04:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I read about Sendai. It's only too easy to imagine Armageddon in a university town (I'm a uni teacher myself). Great to hear from you!
Bishonen |
talk05:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC).
Just posted on Pump - I blocked
Adam Cuerden on Thursday night for a couple of hours (to keep him from digging a deeper hole), and when I tried to unblock him it gave that same message. In the end, I reset the block end date to 10.00 as the town hall clock struck the hour, and that worked.--
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
22:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Baby, will you please quit crying? Don't make me strap you in to the car seat and take you for a drive. That seems to be the only time you sleep!
Tex (
talk)
16:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Bishzilla cautiously straps Baby Tex into pocket of spiderman suit. Baby begins to snore faintly. ] Go to sleep, all little users! [Gosh, Bishzilla is as mild as
User: Famously Mild these days! A bad business! Darwinbish looks at her with distaste and suspicion. ]
bishzillaROARR!!23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC).
(pfft .. hey - it's been a while since I did this WP thing, luck I remembered "HOW" to sign my sig ... well ... 2 outta 3 times anyway. :) — Ched :
? 10:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Uh... thank you. It's not actually necessary to alert people who post in an ANI thread that there's an ANI thread they may be involved in. But I appreciate it.
Bishonen |
talk05:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC).
Could you restore the userbox and take it to MfD please? I don't think this out-of-process deletion was appropriate because it is controversial and there is not currently consensus for it on the ANI thread. Thank you — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
12:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with MSGJ. There is no speedy criteria for this and admins shouldn't be speedy deleting things via IAR without a heck of a good reason. I don't see harm in letting it hang out for a week. Please restore and take it to MfD.
Hobit (
talk)
15:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) No, I'm afraid I won't do that. Anyway, I see Prodego already has, which is fine by me. In my opinion, I had good reason to speedy delete that userbox. Personally, I dislike all political userboxes, and therefore dislike all or nearly all of NYyankees51 boxes; but that wasn't the reason I deleted the "heartbeat" box. Political boxes are currently allowed, and I go by that, not by my personal opinion. The reason for my deletion was instead that I don't think the heartbeat box is a userbox at all. Consider the definition on
Wikipedia:Userboxes:
A userbox is a small colored
box designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's
user pageas a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles.
The userbox definition will perhaps stand some stretching—many boxes are social rather than being anything to do with collaborating effectively, and the community seems to like it like that—but not this much. The main problem is that the heartbeat box is not a communicative notice about NYyankees51; it's more like a polemical statement on a forum (compare WP:NOTFORUM). Socially, it's extremely aggressive, and I'm quite unimpressed by NYyankees51's defense that it's merely "medical fact" etc. Sorry, NYyankees51, but there is no way you can be unaware of how touchy and inflammatory this issue is. My
WP:AGF will only go so far.
Bishonen |
talk15:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC).
I'd like to offer my thoughts on this topic. I share the idea that userboxes of this nature are not helpful to WP.
It seems clear that the userbox in question fails to meet the criteria of WP:Userboxes, in that it is not communicating, per se, about the user (although it does provide information from which one can infer, rightly or wrongly, that the user is opposed to abortion).
It is also not clear that the contents of the userbox, in at least its original incarnation, was
verifiably true.
As a thought exercise, consider that I were to create a userbox that stated "The only real Golden Retriever is the
American type".
The content of this userbox is not describing me, per se (but one could infer that I have a strong opinion in favor of American-type Goldens)
The content of this userbox does not appear to be verifiably true (per the referenced article).
Would this userbox be subject to deletion? I suspect that in practice, no, because, while controversial perhaps to some other Golden Retriever aficionados, it is not as controversial as positions on abortion, politics, or religion.
Yes, Joe, in theory the Golden Retriever box would be subject to deletion, for the very reasons you outlined. And No, Joe, in practice, it wouldn't, because I can almost guarantee that no-one would be bothered. When the lineage of Golden Retrievers becomes as inflammatory a topic as abortion, I may revise my opinion. Cheers, --
Famously Sharp (
talk)
18:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You can, yes, though you won't necessarily be accommodated. I apply the same conditions as
User:LessHeard vanU. They're strict, so please read them carefully
here and think about them before putting in your request. An extra condition, specific to me, is that User:Bishzilla will eat you if you attempt to evade the block.
Bishonen |
talk01:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC).
I don't find the Enforcer that useful, actually—it's too easy to get out. And no, you can't haz cheezburger, Darwinbish is having them all as we speak.
Bishonen |
talk01:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC).
I would have failed for all of this.
You cannot have any recent warnings for vandalism or other bad-faith edits.
You cannot be "under a cloud." If there is a current discussion at
the admin noticeboard or elsewhere regarding a possible block of your account your request will not be considered.
Wikipedia is not therapy. The more often you ask to be blocked the lower the chances are that I will do it for you.
Of course if I were really a man, I would have just posted tubgirl instead of ban my fatass bitch. Interestingly, it led to a permaban instead of a short one. Except you all here are so weak, you did not keep me permabanned. Tsk tsk.
TCO (
talk)
01:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
TCO, give me your password...I'll make sure you get blocked.
Real men can walk away for a while and then come back if they want to...or not. The weather is nice now; find a bicycle and get to it. Take plenty of pictures...you can upload them to Commons later when you come back. Turtles will be popping their heads out soon...go find some....turtle soup is good for you. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕))02:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I got my fat ass down to 10% bf. Gained 60% average on lifting. And got the measurements from dangesous down to 99/58, 62. And biked a lot. Big salads!!!!!
TCO (
talk)
02:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the fun interaction and with working together...and putting up with me. And with Jack. Hope we can collaborate more in the future. We already got the star, but feel free to help the article get better anyhow!
You just wait till I'm an admin, then you'll see fun interaction, reptile man! [The fun-loving darwinbish smuggles the rattlesnake into Bishzilla's pocket, having first removed the babies. In dulcet tones: ] Oh, Ancestral One! Have you read
Rikki-Tikki-Tavi recently? Check your pocket, but don't look! It's a present!
littleanklebiter00:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC).
You sound like the kind that would have fun working on an alligator snapping turtle article...we NEED GAs. We are not proud. Go plus signs!
TCO (
talk)
00:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
An essay about Wikipedia not being my friend
Hello, Bishonen. I seem to remember you having linked to an essay once, about how Wikipedia isn't my friend, how it doesn't wait for me to come online, and doesn't react when I do, or something like that. I honestly only have a vague recollection (which is why I want to re-read it). Was that you? Does it ring a bell? If so, can you find it for me? Thanks! ---
Sluzzelintalk01:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Noo.. I don't think that was me. It sounds more like Geogre, actually. I'm always telling people not to think they're famous, because 90% of the present editors arrived last week, and have never heard of them.. but I don't think there's an essay about it. Maybe I ought to write one. It's a little sad, though. Who am I to tell people their cherished beliefs are lies, like Gregers Werle in The Wild Duck? (If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably
Henrik Ibsen.) And there's a saying that "Wikipedia isn't your mother"... hmm.. no, I got nothing. Sorry, Sluzzelin.
Bishonen |
talk03:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC).
On-site searching for "Wikipedia is not your ..." gave me "... not your mother", "... not your grandmother's recipe book", and "... not amused", but nothing like what I thought I remembered. Misplaced memories, along with all the other junk. Thank you for your swift response! ---
Sluzzelintalk03:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No, no, I mean, yes, yes, that must have been the source of my unreliable memory! In my head, I must have mixed together Bishonen's comment with Kosebamse's essay, maybe with a little bit of Geogre on the side. Thanks, for making and linking the connection, Kosebamse! ---
Sluzzelintalk07:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I sometimes say "Do not love Wikipedia. It will not love you back.". Especially to people who are surprised and distressed to find that, after extensive devotion, they have no rights, no power, and no effective recourse against abuse. Although I haven't expanded that into an essay. Maybe I should. --
Seth Finkelstein (
talk)
04:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I applied to be on a reality based game show. If I get picked to be on, I think Wikipedia should send me some free t-shirts. Then it would be my friend.
Hamster Sandwich (
talk)
19:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Hamster, long time! If it's a wikipedia-based game show, it'll prolly be your friend and cover you with free t-shirts.
Bishonen |
talk22:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC).
Wikipedia is not your friend because it has too many low acheiving idiots who have no friends (for all too obvious reasons) who join the project to meet new and interesting people and then hinder the development of the project because having joined and found tens of kindred spirits, they are then encouraged to boost their low self-esteem and become admins and thwart those trying to write the project.
GiacomoReturned23:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
/me, crushed: ] Yes.. yes.. I know who you mean, how could I not? :-( [Cheers up, fleetingly: ] But at least I met you, Giacomo! That's broadened my horizons a little! :-)
Bishonen |
talk00:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC).
Indeed you did meet me, and how fortunate you were. But I was not referring to you, but the great multitude of Admins who appear not to have noticed that Wikipedia is not only not their friend, but neither is it a social networking sight or some sort of therapy for the marginally and less marginally insane. Anyway enough of the sniping on such a beautiful spring morning; I was awoken today to hundreds of little birds cheeping happily outside my window - what an enchanting sound. If they do it again they are dead!
GiacomoReturned08:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm.. OK. (Ungracious Darwinbish-type answer, just because this reminds me of how much I want my access to the OED back. :-() Giacomo and Malleus, maybe? Tony1?
Bishonen |
talk01:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC).
Well, I have online access to OED as well as Credo and ODNB through my local library's subscription, so you could always 'ping' me if you wanted something looking up or confirming. Tony will know because a notice was posted at FAC, but I'll attend to Malleus and His Excellency immediately. --
RexxS (
talk)
02:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Words of one syllable
Click here. Under "useful things", click "range contribs", copy and paste either the IP range or a list of IPs into the box. Submit. That'll give you the last 50 anon edits from your range. ;)
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 01:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC
Ooo-kay. [With crazed optimism. ] I bet I'll understand most of that tomorrow morning! (Currently 4:30 AM in this timezone, yawn.. )
Bishonen |
talk03:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC).
One syllable
God, you make this hard. So: Add the eye-peas to
this list. Click. Find range. Put range in box. Click eye-pea list. Click. Check for good faith eye-peas who are not mad at the Bard. Block if you want. Done. I hope this helps. If not, poke me.
NW(
Talk)02:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you've reached your monthly limit on free help from NW. It will be $15/month if you would request help in the future, and $30/month if you use one of those
silly square thingies.
NW(
Talk)04:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, for... You won't believe this, Tex. I went get
User:Baby Stupid for some monosyllabic baby conversation, but now he's been blocked! By
User:Erwin, for "abusive username" (what? It even says on his babypage that he's Little Stupid's sockalternative account !) Anyway. I don't get to unblock my own sock, so I've e-mailed Erwin, and also asked HJ Mitchell to help. Sigh, this family is getting to be more trouble than they're worth. It's your fault, you know, Bishzilla! Your Bishapod has started breeding like a rabbit, what did you have to create him for? (Bishzilla sighs in complete agreement. Has long regretted creating Little Stupid. )
Bishonen |
talk16:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
Bishonen, it doesn't look like Erwin did that on en-wiki; his block log here is
empty, which I guess makes sense since he isn't an en-wiki admin. I think this is a "global lock"; I know almost nothing about these, except that lowly en-wiki admins can't do anything about them (it appears that if it was a "global block" of an IP, we could, but I don't think we can unlock named accounts. You might ask someone smarter than me for confirmation, tho). Perhaps the block message has more info? Or perhaps there's an equivalent of... (I usually hate to advise anyone to do this, but) ...ANI on meta? It appears, if the email is unsuccessful, you can ask for help
here. --
Floquenbeam (
talk)
17:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Ha! If the little babies weren't so cute, we'd have to throw them out with the bathwater, wouldn't we? Abusive username. Hehe...who is it abusing? I doubt "Little Stupid" minds having a Baby Stupid around! Anyway, come to think of it, ever since all the socks alternative accounts started showing up, Mighty 'Zilla has been much more boring maternal. When was the last time she ate a newbie?
Tex (
talk)
17:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Floquenbeam. There was no block message. It took some ferreting about to find the block, in fact I'm not sure I could ever find it again. I suppose I could appeal... but then it's a little embarrassing, you know. "What do you mean abusive username, sir? The baby is merely named after Bishapod's pet name Little Stupid, and Bishapod is Bishzilla's sock, and, er.. Bishzilla is my sock, so there!" Why do I get a nasty feeling Meta would tell me to get lost and it's all my own fault? Life is very complicated. Maybe I'll simply leave the little bugger blocked. He's pretty useless anyway. Tex, your baby may be cute, but this one ain't. [/Bishonen surveys her sock drawer. Is depressed. ]
Bishonen |
talk17:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
Cheer up, Chere. You could get an admin who knows what they are doing to add Baby Stupid to the en-wiki's Global Whitelist. See
WP:GlobalBlocking:
* Local whitelisting — A user who is globally blocked can be unblocked locally (to edit the specific wiki concerned only), by any
administrator, at
Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist.
It may be for the best, as it would allow Baby Stupid to edit here, but prevent him from rampaging around the rest of Wikimedia. --
RexxS (
talk)
17:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Well, how about adding the baby sturgeopod to the local whitelist? In the unlikely contingency that I understand what RexxS says, that should work, shouldn't it?
Bishonen |
talk19:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
Hopefully I've warned you enough that I'm over my head here. ("Well, then why the hell do you keep coming here and saying stuff?") In the unlikely event I understand what's going on: there does not appear to be such a thing as a local whitelist for account names; the global block whitelist is actually a local whitelist for globally blocked IP addresses. But a "lock" appears to be different, and as far as I can tell does not have a similar whitelist, and cannot be overridden locally. I hope that I'm wrong, and it's quite possible I am; I can't even find a log of Baby Stupid being globally locked, anywhere on meta, so this could very well be an example of the
Dunning–Kruger effect; I know so little, I don't know how much I don't know. I'm not even 100% sure Baby Stupid is globally locked, it's just the only thing I can think of. Now, I am off to collect my award for "most useless admin". --
Floquenbeam (
talk)
20:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I leave the wiki to its own devices for one day...! I know very little about global b/locks, which is fortunate, since crisis seems to have been averted without my help (or lack thereof!), but if it happens again, I would say your best bet is to contact a steward. I don't know any, but there's a list of them on Meta somewhere. They deal with all things global and I believe they're the ones important enough to make global blocks/locks. As far as I know, you can tell an account is globally locked by opening Special:block and entering their username (as if you were going to block them) and there'll be an "already blocked" message. The reason field usually makes some reference of a global lock and the steward responsible.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
O... K. Well, that actually sounds reasonably simple. It was a Dutch steward who blocked the poor mite, and who fixed the problem after I had fired off a stern e-mail. So much for the dangers of getting involved with the wikipedia
crèche!
Bishonen |
talk22:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
Huh?
'Nishidani, your move of only his proposed new text was frankly a little confusing, sorry.'
Wut? Sorry, I thought that bit was part and parcel of your comments. It was confusing, anyway! ;-) (Effortfully checks the History. It was Paul. Maybe I should go and annoy him, too!)
Bishonen |
talk21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
Hi Bish! Can I ask you to please take a look at
Matti Nykänen? I've just done a major copyedit, and just wanted someone to check that the sources, which are mainly in some north-European language I cannot fathom, are accurately reflected in the text. Seems to be a controversial characterstripper, so I hope you can help ensure that the article is
WP:BLP compliant. Thanks, --
Ohconfucius¡digame!03:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Oh, those sources are in Finnish, a language extravagantly unlike my own. (Finnish isn't even Indo-European.) I don't understand a word of it. Appealing to
WikiProject Finland is probably your best bet.
Bishonen |
talk17:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC).
Thanks. I knew you were from somewhere up there, but had you for being from a few kilometres further east! ;-)
Swedes are more extrovert than Finns. (And less extrovert than the rest of the world.)
Q: How can you tell if a person is Swedish or Finnish?
You are sure to know - where is the place to nominate categories for deletion. I have found this silly nonesense here
Category:Haunted houses which is not only bollox, but unencyclopedic bollox. If it's allowed to remain, then Lady Catherine should become an admin and preside over it.
GiacomoReturned07:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You can see from the edit summary -- I'm using
igloo. I used to use
twinkle, and still do, some -- igloo automates most of the process but is really bad at some things (currently, it's still being written), whereas twinkle is easier to use on a case-by-case basis.
Gscshoyru (
talk)
13:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The media file you uploaded as
File:Theophilus Cibber as Pistol.png is missing information as to its authorship (and or source)
, or if such information is provided it is confusing.
Although images may not need author information in un-controversial cases, or where an applicable source is provided,
such information aids those making use of the image, and helps verify the copyright status of an image.
If possible, please consider updating the media information page to make the authorship (and or source) of this media clearer.
If the media is your own work, please consider explicitly including your user name or using the {{own}} template on the media information page.
I was trying to rescue it, not get it nuked. If you can't give an exact citation, try and provide as much information as you can recall, like "Source= Archive image now in public domain" or something :) .
Sfan00 IMG (
talk)
22:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't recall a thing, but I've looked again, and added an excruciatingly detailed description of (obviously) the right image from the British Museum catalogue, and the age (created c. 1733) and the author (a certain mr. Anonymous). The images out there seem to all come from Wikipedia, though not all acknowledge it, and I've mentioned that also. So I still don't have a source, sorry. Please feel free to change my input if it isn't the right kind.
Bishonen |
talk23:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC).
And I've added {{keeplocal}}to all the Bishzilla images, to counteract the template which currently recommends admins to move them to Commons and delete them on en.
File:Bishzilla spin.gif had had this done to it by some bad person, AND also had a recommendation on Commons that it be deleted on arrival! Useful to be an admin sometimes, even though I don't know what I'm doing half the time — I
undeleted the en.wiki sucker, haha. Incidentally, Famously, do you think it would be safe to put it back in the "Images of users" category on Commons? :-) A very noble user by the name of Pieter Kuiper had put it there (what a charming man, Bishzilla was delighted), but then a bot had come along and boringly changed it to "User page images". :-(
Bishonen |
talk21:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC).
Speaking of 'Zilla - she's such a great comic character. Have you ever considered writing a children's book based on B.'s adventures? Or better still, a children's book that's really a book for adults. Just a thought ...
Gatoclass (
talk)
05:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Comic.. ? [Bishzilla is nonplussed. ] Not usually thought of as "comic" ! [A little haughtily: ] "Popular", "amiable" and "warm-hearted" spring more readily to mind — example, little Gato see
Zilla arbcom vote! [Bishzilla starts to plan a rather sad, immensely moving, book about herself on arbcom. ]
bishzillaROARR!!11:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC).
Absolutely - change it back. "User page images" is an ambiguous category as it may be expected to contain images of 'user pages'; "Images of users" is a much clearer category and is naturally preferred on Commons. Anyone who has followed the adventures of Arnie in the 'Terminator' series will understand the dangers of letting bots override humans, so the next time it happens, drop this image on the bot owner's page with a stern warning. --
Famously Sharp (
talk)
05:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Kent until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ♦
Dr. Blofeld09:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
If I'd have thought you'd actually want to talk without lolling at me I'd have asked you first. I've caught a snippet at
here which says she was a minor actress. That book source you added is very good but we need a good range of sources to write a good article about her. It is exactly the sort of subject we need on wikipedia, imagine all of the stage actors missing from like 17th century etc. But we do need a few sources... Mmm I think maybe its the period and subject which accounts for the very poor coverage of her perhaps?...
In regards to your comments. Honestly I had no idea there was so many against infoboxes. I'd have to agree for biographies which rarely contain any useful statistics beyond date of birth and place of birth and spouse. Maps are my thing, so I thought it was a good thing to identify where in the city it is. If I had my own way we'd have our own proper Atlas project and the ability to make much better quality maps. ♦
Dr. Blofeld13:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you find the page numbers of the book and add citations? I've withdrawn it and added a bit from what I could find, I think the severe lack of sources is more due to the period, I am well aware of hundreds of notable actors from the same period which are barely mentioned in books. She was a minor actress but her roles perhaps meet guidelines.♦
Dr. Blofeld14:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, no, I can't find the page numbers I'm afraid. Can't and don't want to. Come on, it's a dictionary! Alphabetical! I remember once reading in the MLA Handbook — don't remember which edition — that they deplored the bureaucratic practice of putting useless information, such as page references to alphabetical works, into citations. Also, as far as I remember it, the Mary Kent entry is perhaps a page long, so I believe a reader can navigate it for information without the help of a pepperpot of superscribed note numbers (which would all refer to the same page).
I don't really think she has poor coverage, in relation to being a minor actress. It's significant that her death date is unknown — I've done quite a few actor stubs from the period (they're listed towards the end of
this page, in case you wish to deleteconsult them), that go with the long play articles The Relapse and The Country Wife, and I've seen that normally, while the birth date for actors may well be obscure, when they died is reasonably well known . The Relapse is sort of illuminating about Mary Kent, and puts the high point of her career into context. If you'd care to look for her in that article, you may get a sense of her notability, such as it is. But otherwise, I think the stub already gave the information there is. It could be expressed with more puffery, of course, and I could list one or two performances from Van Lennep, William (ed.), The London Stage 1660—1800: A Calendar of Plays, Entertainments and Afterpieces Together with Casts, Box-Receipts and Contemporary Comment Compiled from the Playbills, Newspapers and Theatrical Diaries of the Period, Part 1: 1660–1700, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press — an extremely reputable source — in order to list that book as a reference, but meh, there's no real point, only a puffed-up point. Plus, I'd have to traipse to the library.
About your new references: I don't think Pearson is a very good source (shrug). It's an academic book and so on; just not very good. Elizabeth Howe is fine, but the info you refer to her is all in Highfill as well, so I don't quite see the point, other than formally achieving your "more than one source" desideratum. (Is that supposed to be a rule? Every stub needs more than one source or it should be deleted? I don't think so.)
As for your vile suggestion that the period and subject are less than fascinating, what can you mean by it? Snort.
Bishonen |
talk21:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC).
I don't understand your conversation, but I can explain why there are three different ways of writing every simple (one-edit) diff. Say you want a diff for the edit that turned page version A into page version B.
Thanks, Hans. I've often stumbled across pairs of diffs for the same post, so I knew there could, somehow, be two — I had no idea there were actually three possibilities. That's kind of scary. Sorry about the conversation. Less Heard doesn't always understand his own conversation, I feel.
Bishonen |
talk21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC).
Although Jack would have wanted you to use {{diff2|423597625}} which links as [10] - this respects whether the viewer is logged on via the secure server or not. As you can see, you actually only need the diff=423597625 from the first of Hans' examples (which is what shows up in your watchlist btw) to create a link for the diff you wanted most of the time. In memoriam. --
RexxS (
talk)
00:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Ignore all that paranormal rubish above. I expect you have all been wondering where I have been - Well I'm off the yacht and back in London for the week (obvious reasons - No, I will not disclose my secrets of the Royals, allthough, I may "tweet" to you all from the Abbey during the dull bits on Friday. Poor dear little Kate (obviously Catherine, like me now) is so eager to learn of my advice for a long and happy marriage - so I am very busy, but why am you here you ask? well poor dear Giacomo needs some help here
[11] - so pop along and help. Now I must go, the poor dear Queen keeps pestering me for advice on what to wear (I keep saying to her: "is
Ms Westwood really your sort of thing") and what title to give darlingest William (it's going to be Lancaster - you heard it here first) and that Jimbo man; I keep telling him, I already have my "Plus 1" sorted out, but will he take "no" for an answer? So much to do and so little time, I do will wish I had a dull, humdrum little life like you, dearest little Mrs Bishonen. Do take care.
Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (
talk)
19:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I think Giacomo seems to be doing quite well in his charitable work giving reading lessons to the lower classes. What odds do you have on Lancaster m'dear. In the right place, 5 will get you 10 on Kate becoming the Duchess of Dagenham (argent, a Ford Escort gules fesswise surmounted by three pallets retrait in base, each bearing the inscription "Omnes ex":) --
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
21:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Does the inscription mean "All bring your exes to the party"? That might improve my humdrumness a bit, though I'm far from expecting to reach the zany heights of bestowing barnstars of diplomacy on User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You're one of a kind, Elen!
Bishonen |
talk22:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC).
LOL! I have to admit, what I was thinking of with young Master Wolfowitz was what used to be termed 'shuttle diplomacy' - where some poor politician ran to and fro between two warring parties, earnestly entreating them to rethink their position, a thankless task which he carried out without any prompting. As to the Duchess, while 'all bring your exes' might well make for a more exciting party - perhaps more along the lines of the marriage of
Caroline of Brunswick, I was actually thinking more of the frequently strikebound Ford car plant at Dagenham.
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
10:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, the Late Lady Catherine and I both lost our shirts - who remembered that the Queen had Cambridge in the bag! And the bookies must have been relieved when Wills borrowed daddy's Aston Martin, instead of riding back to mum's gaff in either the pram or Cinders coach.
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
08:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Random hello
Just a hello to my fav consumer of Japanese metropoli (are Japanese disaster jokes in bad taste these days?) --
Lyncs (
talk)
23:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
['Zilla stuffs all little Japanese users and also User:Calton tenderly in her pocket for safekeeping. ] Jump in, little Lynx!
bishzillaROARR!!23:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC).
Qwyrxian, please stop reverting 125.162.150.88. His message is welcome, and I will respond to it as soon as I get a chance.
Bishonen |
talk14:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
Would you mind creating a category for your alt-accounts/sockpuppets? It's hard to keep track of them all. Thanks,
Tijfo098 (
talk)
12:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not me refusing point-blank, but I have to ask: why do you want to keep track of them? I think the idea makes them a little nervous. And it's not like they're all over the place. They come out and play on this page of mine, on their own talkpages, and on the pages of good friends who are glad to see them. Any other appearance is the exception, and invariably in a self-explanatory context. For instance, if some stranger mentions Bishzilla, the matriarch of the clan, 'Zilla has a certain tendency to immediately appear in the same thread and say something — not something contentious or political, let alone to VOTE or anything like that— but most likely simply "RAWRRR?" That seems helpful, if anything, to people who may have been confused by the original mention: "Aha, so it's a user!" Or even, in the case of the exceptionally smart reader: "Aha, perhaps a sock!" Things were different when she was an admin, admittedly, but that's all in the past now.
[13]
Category.. no, it doesn't feel right. Really, it would feel like putting them in jail. I'll send you (and anybody who asks) a list of the family if you like, provided you don't publish it on wiki, or create that cat; how about that? Can't guarantee it would be complete, I suppose; I have some trouble keeping track of them all! :-)
Aren't you the one that trying to make a point because of you continuing to use the word point to make a point? (See what I did there?)
SilverserenC08:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
@Silver Seren: I guess you forgot to mention your real reasons for attempting to incommode me with this new "rule", which must have mystified people who didn't know the background (=your hostility towards me). Supposedly I'm merely your example; actually I'm your target. You're a notorious waste of space on WP:ANI,(
[15], end of post) and now I find you on my page cheerfully acknowledging that you were merely trolling WP:PUMP, too. ("I knew it wasn't going to work" — but you suggested it anyway, didn't you? Do you even know how classic
troll behaviour that is?) What makes you think you get to post on this page? Take your bad faith somewhere else.
Bishonen |
talk20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC).
I knew it wasn't going to work because 1) All of your friends were going to be the first to comment and it was just going to cause a snowball effect. I made the proposal to see the opinions of other people and I got a good explanation that the point is to directly focus on disruption by alternate accounts. And, yes, while your actions prompted me to make that proposal, you are not the only person by far that has a bushel of alts and you are by far not the person who uses them the most disruptively. The only issue is that the majority of users that have a ton of alts and end up being disruptive are also established users who have a bunch of friends to back them. I didn't make the proposal to "troll", as you put it, I made it to see the general opinion of such alt accounts, as such things really aren't very clearly defined in policy pages. (And I commented on here because Barong (Jack Merridew) is trying to use this to make jabs at me, since i'm on the list. I'm not going to comment on here again.)
SilverserenC21:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Aha, you "knew" your proposal was going to get shot down because all of my friends would comment? Nothing to do with it being a stupid proposal? Out of the 13 people who commented on it, there are 3 I have ever spoken with, to the best of my recollection: the "snowball" and "bunch of friends" consists of Barong, Hans Adler, and Heimstern. Your world is a weird place with weird accusations. (You may reply if you have something to say.)
Bishonen |
talk08:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC).
I don't think it's a secret that Jay and I don't see eye to eye on that particular subject. That, in fact, is the point of having a diverse committee.
As to the tone, well, since he recused he's "just another editor" commenting on that matter. If we started coming down onto editors every time they are snippy or offensive on arbitration pages (where tempers and feelings are unfailingly frayed) then... well, it sure would be quiet out there. :-) We've always been much more forgiving about misbehavior on case pages than we would be elsewhere. I felt his comment was best left without a response on the request page. —
Coren(talk)23:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Somehow I get the impression that being "just another editor" carries less weight than those who are not "just another editor"; Am I right? It may be better to judge on the strength of the argument, rather than the name of the contributor - wouldn't you think? And I'm sure you'll understand that although my feelings have been more than frayed by the present discussions, that's no reason for my temper to be raised. An angry T-Rexx would not be a pretty sight. --
Famously Sharp (
talk)
03:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
You're missing my point, or I'm making it wrong. I used "just another editor" to mean exactly the opposite: nobody gets more weight because of who they are or how connected they are. —
Coren(talk)11:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, if the AC have started treated recused members like "just another editor", it's none too soon, and I'm glad to hear it. I've been around long enough to see startling abuses of "recusal": recused committee members who throw their weight around and bully the rest of the committee just as usual; who are involved parties yet get to read and contribute to the AC mailing list (which is an important venue during a case) just as usual... and I've been around long enough to have my complaints dismissed with "oh, he probably doesn't actually read it and he's a friend of ours, assume good faith Bishonen!" Encouraging to see the worst of the AC old-school-tie system fading away, even if there's been a lot of foot-dragging; I wonder, for instance, if the committee is aware of how badly my supposed access to the ML worked during the 2009 Jimbo/Bishonen case. That was supposed to ensure that "nobody [=Jimbo] got more weight because of who they were." I hope that's all history. (Out of curiosity: do John and Casliber at present have full access to the relevant part of the mailing list?)
Bishonen |
talk14:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
(
edit conflict) I'm glad to hear that, Coren. Please accept my apologies for my lack of understanding, but I find that's an inevitable consequence of the medium in which we are communicating. While we're examining communication, could I be so bold as to ask you to have another think about your attitude to Jack? I know that you don't have a high opinion of him, but is it possible you are also misunderstanding? I still think that if you looked afresh at his contributions for 2009 and 2010 (even a tiny sample of them), you might find that his net contribution to the encyclopedia was a long way into the positive. Everybody agrees that he can be spiky and doesn't suffer fools well, but many of us are guilty of those offences, and we aren't required to carry the stigma of ancient sanctions as a result. --
T-RexxS (
talk)
14:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
(
edit conflict) FWIW, Arbcom has a secondary mailing list; when a member of the committee is recused from something controversial, the supplemental list is broken out of hibernation, all discussion related to the topic is shunted across to it, and the member in question is temporarily unsubscribed. Arbcom is considerably less corrupt than a lot of people think; if the shit ever does hit the fan, the Arbcom archives are where the subpoenas are gonna be aimed, so it's much more by-the-book than you might believe. There's also the obvious point that if Arbcom were really working as a cabal cooking up deals behind the scenes, we wouldn't have quite so many situations (including this one) where it's impossible to get anyone to agree on anything. The Arbcom mailing list isn't so much "stitching up backroom deals", but more "OK, whose turn is it to reply to [insert crank-of-the-day] this time?".
WRT this particular case, I'm coming round to the view that the right way to stop Jack being singled out for special treatment is to keep the one-account-without-good-reason-to-do-otherwise restriction on Jack, but to spread that ruling out project-wide, even if it means sending Zilla and Catherine into retirement. The time sucked up by endless "is this account legitimate, is that account legitimate?" threads must add up to an impressive figure by now; a straightforward "no more than two accounts for anyone and they have to be clearly linked" rule for everyone would have saved most of this time. –
iridescent14:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, that tells me the present arbcom isn't in fact aware of the problems with my supposed access in that old case. Never mind, why should you be? It was IMO never a question of corruption anyway, but of
WP:COMPETENCE. Just apply
Hanlon's Razor. :-)
Bishonen |
talk18:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
This member of the present arbcom certainly isn't, although obviously there are still some like Brad who were around at the time. Whatever various conspiracy-mongers may claim (you know who you are) there is no secret database of past problems (the mythical Arbcom Archives are actually a few humungous text files with names like "all emails received in January 2010", and no sane person would read them unless they really had to). All I can talk about is how things operate now (e.g., Elen of the Roads couldn't see any discussion of RH&E when her evidence against him was being discussed). –
iridescent18:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Good thing arbcom can't dictate policy, huh. Why is it that everyone "in power" seems to think they know what's best for everyone else? I never thought Iridescent would become one of "those" people when she was elected to the arbcom. Retire Bishzilla? BOOOOO!!!!!!
Tex (
talk)
16:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
See, the thing is, Iridescent falls for the seduction of the dark side of the sock anyway! Once you move away from a straightforward "no more than ONE account for anyone and they have to be clearly linked" rule for everyone, you've lost any chance of getting agreement to it. Some people will give you good reasons for two accounts; some will explain that three are needed. And so on, until you get to six (for 'Shonen, 'Zilla, 'Poddie, the Darwin twins, and a spare). A rule of one would have the saving grace that there's a chance Geogre would still be with us had it existed from the start, but realistically, that's all too late now. Once you've accepted that people need/like having a few accounts, you've got to accept that under current rules Jack is discriminated against. And don't forget that since his socking days of 2007/2008, Jack has consistently edited from only one account until he felt the need to protest his outdated restriction by kicking against it with Gold Hat. One can only assume that had he not made a fuss, he'd be kept under indefinite restrictions until the heat death of the universe. --
Famously Sharp (
talk)
16:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
A rule of one would never work, since there are a lot of legitimate reasons for two accounts—a lot of people have a separate account for insecure terminals, or a second account with a shorter password for use on phones and the like where entering the recommended lengthy-string-of-random-characters password isn't practical. If I were designing Wikipedia from scratch, I'd have the rule be "no more than two active accounts, only one of which has advanced permissions of any kind and both of which are clearly linked. If a third account is required for reasons of privacy or segregation of edits, a written request must be made to the Bot Approvals Group for bot accounts, or to Arbcom (or a successor body set up to handle this kind of appeal) for an account to be used for any other purpose."
What a far-fetched analogy, Iridescent. What does Barong have to do with that editor? Is the ac aware of the last time (to my knowledge)
an arbitrator lied to our faces while swearing he was telling the truth and was an example of integrity to us all? Does anybody nourish a pressing desire for a rerun of that ? If not, should we perhaps stop electing arbs, potentially dishonest as they apparently are?
Bishonen |
talk22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
That's perceptive, but still not quite there :) If you can be firmly convinced that two is the magic number, then someone else can be equally firmly convinced that the number is three, and so on. Believe me, you'd never get consensus. And as for Jack, the restriction he wants lifted is actually "whatever the four-year old restriction is" - I assure you that the form of the restriction is immaterial to him. It's the existence of any restriction after such a long time that bugs him.
I actually did some work with Matisse not so long ago on Wikisource. Well, we were both editing the same document, which is about as close as collaboration gets there, so it was quite a pleasant experience. But you're wrong about my attitude to the possibility of a rerun in Jack's case; I'm a sucker when it comes to assuming the best in people. It's disappointing when you trust someone and they let you down; but when someone repays the trust you put in them and reforms, that makes it all worthwhile. The opposite, pessimistic view of humankind is too depressing to consider. Steer clear of it. --
RexxS (
talk)
22:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, RexxS: Maybe you're right, but the problem is that Admins and Arbs work in so many areas where putting hope in people is foolish, because we've been disappointed so many times. I know there is disagreement with the motion that I posted (that is currently listed as passing), however, I will say this. As I said there, Barong (I'm using the recent account name, he asked to move away from the JM name), really shot himself in the foot. Maybe administrators and or the committee should have blocked the Gold Hat account in the first place, rather then telling him "stop doing that", since that seemed to just encourage him. As I said previously, his actions with the JM account (deliberately compromising that account, and later the Barong one was almost like he was doing a behavior straight out of
Option B of WP:NOPONY) and constant poking at others via the IP address gave me no confidence that he was going to fly right, (considering a community discussion to ban JM looked like it was going to have a good chance of passing at one point, continuing to be intransigent and pressing the point was at best unwise.) Finally, I hope JM/Barong decides at some point to come back and show by his actions that he can fly right and avoid trouble, then we can discuss lifting the one account restriction. I've never denied that he's made really good edits, and if he could avoid the behavior that's caused problem, would be a real credit to the encyclopedia.
SirFozzie (
talk)
22:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Fozzie, all that would be well and good if indeed admins and arbs had said "stop doing that" about the Gold Hat account, but they did not. T. Canens decided to ask the committee for clarification and got a big "meh" out of them. Then once Jack wanted restrictions lifted, it was suddenly nothing of the sort. The lesson here seems to be that one should not ask the committee to clarify things, for, like the elves, they will answer both yes and no.
Heimstern Läufer(talk)23:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
(
←) Well, I don't speak for any other arb, of course, but I clearly remember saying that the Gold Hat account was a technical violation of the ban, almost certainly not worth sanctioning over, but profoundly unwise. Perhaps, in retrospect, it would have been better to be more strict then and block him — but it didn't occur to me that he (or anyone else) could mistake "not disruptive enough to intervene" with "perfectly okay behavior". —
Coren(talk)00:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
@ Coren: He had the Gold Hat account since June 2010. He communicated at various times with four different admins using the Gold Hat account—Shell Kinney, T. Canens, Bish, and myself—before he posted to Arbcom asking for a lifting of his final restriction. He likely felt that under these circumstances asking for official permission to carry on with it was merely a formality. So I imagine it was quite a shock to find that the last arbcom restriction would not be lifted, in spite of the years of productive editing, and the tacit agreement of at least four admins that the Gold Hat account was OK. I would encourage you to re-think your stance on this, Coren. --
Diannaa(
Talk)02:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's the crux of the issue, Diannaa. After his contributions to other Wikimedia projects in 2008, and his contributions in 2009 and 2010, did Jack have a right to expect that his remaining restriction should be lifted? In my view, he did have that right, because we are promised that rehabilitation is possible.
The restriction was placed in December 2008, and was respected for two years. Who is going to tell me and the rest of the community that two years of positive contribution is not long enough to earn the right to have someone's restrictions lifted? He had certainly received enough signals that it was enough, and the tragic part is that Jack wasn't in a position to ask for a review on the second anniversary of his unban (Dec 2010).
I still think that the "joke Mexican bandito" second account was unwise, but never disruptive to the encyclopedia. It seems to me that ArbCom has now enforced the letter of the law with no regard to the spirit, and to the net detriment of our project. Pity. --
RexxS (
talk)
12:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Though it's hardly news that the committee is overly focused on Da Rules and insufficiently focused on the encyclopedia. I mean, that's why people who bother to stand up for neutrality against the raving nationalists get sanctioned equally with the nationalists themselves. Rules Are Rules, and woe betide the one who breaks them or
ignores them.
Heimstern Läufer(talk)14:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Swedish allotment system FAR
I have nominated
Swedish allotment system for a
featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets
featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are
here. P. S. Burton (
talk)11:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't think why poor Mrs Bishonen is so concerned; it's not as though Mr FT2 is one of our elected leaders - or ever likely to be - is it? If people want to drone on, it's those forced to read it that I feel sorry for, what ever sort of person would ever read beyond word 120 of an arbitration statement?
Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (
talk)
22:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Well it was nice, and unexpected, to get a crisp "yes" in reply from Roger and Risker. I was frankly expecting more of a "Personal attack removed" type of response, so that's cool. As for Bishzilla, she was
amusing herself too much to really need an apology; more than I've ever done with those admin tools, in fact. Maybe I should return them to her. [Bishzilla eats the meerkat. Nom nom. Then stands on her head in an effort to understand the
Katana piped link. No soap. ] Now make up your mind, people; is Zilla supposed to pick her teeth
with viking helmets or samurai swords?
Bishonen |
talk23:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC).
Re unexpected: I know I risk sounding even more of a wisenheimer by so doing, but I can't help linking to
fundamental attribution error. As a simple application, most people would believe that Bishzilla ate the meerkat because she is a monster. Bishzilla probably believes that she had to eat it because it asked for it. The truth is usually somewhere in between.
HansAdler14:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Über allen Gipfeln ist Heimstern Läufer! [Bishzilla sticks the little Heimstern in her pocket to save his wisdom for later. ] Got more meerkats, little Hans?
bishzillaROARR!!19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
Heim, a tenor in a more peaceful mood, breaks into "Am See" D. 746, hoping so much that 'Zilla will not evaporate the lake and burn up the stars with her fire breath.
Heimstern Läufer(talk)23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. Maybe Schubert not best vehicle for Zilla vocal resources. (Bishzilla switches to her well-known rendering of Ole Man River).
bishzillaROARR!!23:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
The state of being rabid does indeed come from having rabies, so you'd best keep out of Darwinbish's way. The person I myself bit is now
blocked, which, considered per
WP:ROPE, is surely a pity. For what could be more economically illustrative of our (or Shakespeare's) problems than her own words? The statement she has already posted on the RfAR page, for instance, provides a kind of shortcut to the heart of the matter. I plan to argue this with the little Futzilla as soon as I have time to spare, i.e.
WP:NOTNOW.
Bishonen |
talk12:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
Of course,
hydrophobia is indicative of and an alternate name for rabies - what erudite jesters we are...!
The hopefully soon to be opened SAQ Arbitration case should not, I feel, become the NinaGreen Arbitration case - the issue is far too long standing for the focus to be on the most recent focus of advocacy/pov issues; I am hoping that you as an established custodian of that article can provide some historical oversight (pre or contemporary with Smatprt?) of the concerns. (Do I now end this with some reference to Bishzilla? Your removal of others examples has somewhat restricted my understanding of your talkpage protocols...)
LessHeard vanU (
talk)
12:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Flashing her most reassuring smile at the little Less, Bishzilla comes towards him to give him a hug. Watches sadly as he disappears over the hills. ] Little user come back! Need big hug! Remember hugging protocols!
bishzillaROARR!!22:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
If I wanted to
blow a raspberry at someone on the internet, how would I go about communicating that in writing? How would you spell it? PHTTHPTH? Someone needs to come up with a spelling and create a meme so that everyone on the internet knows what you are doing when you type that.
Tex (
talk)
21:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure that this is legal, and even if it were it should not be mentioned in polite company (therefore, this page is fine...)
LessHeard vanU (
talk)
12:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
THIIBBBIT would work. However, in my experience, the more time-honored "pppppppppppppppbbbbbbbllllht!" is just as effective; this form may have the bs between the p section and the l section omitted. Remember that the raspberry, or Bronx cheer, is an unvoiced linguolabial trill. As such, while specific spelling is open to interpretation, repeated consonants are a must. In this day of modern technology, there is always the linking or sending of a sound file, as well, which will leave no doubt as to the nature of your communique, even for the more obtuse. I trust I have been of some minor assistance.
KillerChihuahua?!?Advice14:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Sententiously :] Bishonen is regrettable compound of all worst features of all her socks, little Elen. Tetchy, difficult personality! Naughty 'shonen always embarrass easy-going popular Zilla! Whole family hopeless! [Bishzilla slouches off, grumbling. Somehow doesn't seem so easy-going today! ]
bishzillaROARR!!00:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC).
Bishzilla returns to make a final point: ] As for 'shonen bias, need seen to be believed! Look
how many ways is biased!
bishzillaROARR!! 00:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC). [Bishzilla finally leaves. Bishonen considers topic banning the sour monster from her page. Sighs. Fixes the link. ]
Bishonen |
talk00:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC).
regarding phonetics
My grandfather, who served in the Indian Army under Auchinlek, once witnessed a discussion between two aged gentlemen at the Officers Club who were insisting upon their interpretation of the of the subject matter. One insisted that, phonetically, it should be represented as "Baaa-room" while the other remained adamant that "Bar-ooom" was the better approximation. This discourse was eventually interrupted by a young officer who, in attempting to draw the situation to a conclusion, noted that each vowel in the word had equal prominence and the correct pronunciation was "barroom". Silence ensured, while each of the ancients contemplated this new opinion. Finally, one stirred and said, "Bright young fellah, no doubt, but I rather fancy he has never heard an elephant fart..."
LessHeard vanU (
talk)
23:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Ha!
I must have inadvertently deleted the "parties" template on the workshop page. I don't really think anybody would mistake me for an arbitrator.
Tom Reedy (
talk)
03:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve!" I think WP policies guarantees I will keep those promises!
Tom Reedy (
talk)
06:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"You all did see that on the Lupercal Bishonen thrice presented him with kingly robes, which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?" Two more to go... :P MastCellTalk17:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
That's "genuwine", Big Rex. But don't feel bad, I missed it in the caption, too. Fixing. Oh, I hope you enjoyed
this, before Shell Kinney removed it. You're in there too, somewhat. The author seemed upset to lose such a masterpiece of raillery, but I think Shell did him a BIG favour. In fact I had some thoughts of reverting her, but I guess I'll stay nice for these last few days of arbitration. Nice-ish.
Bishonen |
talk04:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC).
I thought it was spelled
Ginuwine, in honor of the spokesman for Adult Chocolate Milk (a 40-proof vodka-based version of chocolate milk, presumably marketed to people who don't want to be bothered pouring vodka into chocolate milk themselves). MastCellTalk06:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I copied the caption, honest guv (my excuse and I'm sticking to it). Thanks for reminding me, I did spot that invective before Shell expunged it, although I was clearly treated far too leniently for the heinous crime of adopting you and your supplementary proposal. Never mind, I'm roundly battered somewhere else on that page for having the temerity to suggest a bunch of principles that almost everybody seemed to agree with. And while I remember, your point at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop#Upon editors compliance with the standard model of interactions is well made, and the argument so compelling that I gladly concede (being threatened with the Darwinbish always does the trick). Hmmmm, now there's an idea for a Remedy. --
RexxS (
talk)
05:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
You adopted me? Daddy, daddy!!!! Er, you do realise the socks go wherever I go? (With the fortunate exception of Bishzilla, who always prefers moving in with her
faithful manager, or taking a nap in the cosy
Great Pacific Garbage Patch). Still, I hope you have a big house. I bet young darwinbish is looking forward to helping out with the remedies in that bitey case.
Bishonen |
talk15:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC).
Fortunately the house is so large that you could even fit Jimbo's ego into it. Your socks will be very useful indeed for executing the necessary remedies. 'Zilla's breath will be invaluable in clearing Tom's drive; and the darwinbish will make short work of terminating with extreme prejudice those who are foolish enough to refer to us dinosaurs as 'toys'. Did I miss anything else of importance in that case? --
T-RexxS (
talk)
04:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I only just discovered the article today, and was cleaning it up. When I attempted to move it, I discovered it had been moved to the lower case "s" in 2004. I could find no reason for it. Thanks for moving it back. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'00:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
While we're on the issue, when all this
frivolous diversion is done and dusted, can I expect both of you to head over to
Coffee and do some content work? Cas and I have been struggling for the past year to get that into shape for FA. --
RexxS (
talk)
00:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the pretty latte, Rex! Content work? A half-forgotten concept! I'll take a shot at it.. eventually.. I hope. I've got another diversion first: doing the footnotes for my mum on Swedish wikipedia. Trickier than you might think! Meanwhile, why don't you inquire at the
darwinbish's place? Now there's a caffeine freak!
Bishonen |
talk15:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC).
SAQ
Much as I can understand your urge to comment
[1], perhaps it would be better to just not provoke her into further replies, don't you think? I mean, it's not as if further refutations like this would be likely to either teach her something, or tell anybody else something new, is it? Just a thought :-)
Fut.Perf.☼14:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Bish: Why have you written your latest evidence section in green? It provides a lot of discomfort to the pedantic clerk in me, but, really, I'm just curious as to why you did it :P.
AGK [
•13:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
To unmask the people who don't read my evidence, because there's an explanation in there, AGK! :-P Did you happen to notice that there are a couple of green bits in my "real", original evidence section also—the one that's not about Smatprt? All my green text has the same function: to look different from the rest. To look new and green. See, I disapprove strongly of people adding to their original text without indicating that "this was written later, and refers to stuff that has happened after my original evidence." That is information I want, when I read other people's evidence. It makes things much clearer. But I usually don't get it: people chop and change, remove and add, and mostly don't even date the changes! The more I read such
palimpsest evidence, the more discomfort it causes the pedantic editor in me. So much so that I wanted to make my own additions really different, as different as possible. Proper dates! Green dye!
Lots of reasons! Still uncomfortable? If you are, I suggest a non-green way of doing it, which you're very welcome to implement: wash out the green dye and give those bits a different font instead. That's beyond my skill, or I'd do it myself.
Bishonen |
talk14:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
Let dino help. Little user should put:
span.bish { color: black; }
into user's monobook.css or vector.css or what skin they in. Refresh cache like you told to. Then they see 'Shonen's evidence in glorious Technicolor black. Other colours on request. --
T-RexxS (
talk)
16:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Uhhh.. er.. And that will provide me with different fonts to use? Big Rex been partaking illegal substances or something? [Oh dear, she's channelling 'Zilla again. Little 'shonen tries to picture how much weed would be required to mellow out a Tyrannosaurus Rex. A haystack appears before her inner eye. Giggles. ]
Bishonen |
talk16:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
Was really for Little Tony (wanted black). Little Big Shonen want fonts as well? 'z easy:
Yes, I thought of mentioning Little Tony to AGK as well (Tony uses green to say "It's me"), but figured he was probably combobulated enough already. AGK, that is. Font family..? But Rex, to play, I need to see what fonts I have. Doesn't look like so many.. ? Or is it a big family? (Any darwinsocks in it?) If I put script in monobook, will it do its own playing? (A little scary, that notion.) Or how can I choose font? Entering very difficult territory here!
Bishonen |
talk18:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
Stop asking such stupid questions, 'shonen! Embarrassing the smart twins! Just melt into the wallpaper, I can't keep order in this entire dumb family! Too much work!
darwinbishBITE18:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
Half outraged, half amused. ] Well, 'ark at 'er! Bishapod!!!! This is all your fault! Lock your naughty sock in a closet or something!
Bishonen |
talk18:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
Your woes are now legend
Hi, Bishonen, I probably don't have any distinct identity among the WP legions, but when I need amusement I visit the adventures here. Thought of you when I read
this piece by Adam Gopnik in the current New Yorker. Search "Shakespeare."
Cynwolfe (
talk)
14:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hehe. Speaking of fame and the power of stupid, I'm still not over the disappointment of
thiscase failing to escape from the confines of Wikipedia to lead the other media a merry dance. That would have been an awfully big adventure. But too many people were determined it wouldn't happen, I guess. Anyway, do feel free to join in the adventures, meet all the nutcases! Just look out for the more alarming of the socks, they bite.
Bishonen |
talk20:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC).
Yes, exactly! That is indeed what I want. Can you arrange it, dear Lady Rollbacker? I know you and mr Wales are ... close.
Bishonen |
talk20:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC).
All this Shakespeare business is nonsense, it's well known in senior academic circles (such as those which I inhabit) that all 'his' works were written by none other than my forbear Phimosis Bonquebuster, 3rd Earl of Scrotum – a very close personal friend and “intimate” of the Virgin Queen herself.
Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (
talk)
19:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
There's only one answer to that sort of nonsense at ARBSAQ. And it's over there on the right. As Eric Idle sang, "When you're chewing on life's gristle, give a little whistle ..." --
RexxS (
talk)
01:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I bet they were nice. [Casts a stern eye on the darwinbish, still chewing. ] Are they a suggestion for a user RfC? Thanks, but I don't think I will. RfC's are pretty woeful. (Darwinbish, if you're going to eat all the cupcakes that show up around here, you'd better learn to bake, that's all.) As Woody Allen sang,
"Enjoy yourself, enjoy yourself, it's later than you think".. "
Bishonen |
talk18:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC).
No, an RfC/U hadn't occurred to me. I was just doing what everybody should do when they see ridiculous allegations being made: give Bish cupcakes! I'll make a fresh batch and deliver them on a tall table. How high can the little terror reach? --
RexxS (
talk)
04:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It pains me to see that the absurd allegations brought against you have driven you into a Wikibreak. Although there's no RFC against you, I think this would still be an appropriate time to follow that grand tradition of thanking Bishonen for her hard work as an administrator and awarding her cupcakes!
Heimstern Läufer(talk)06:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Block
Since I've been handing out blocks left and right:
You have been given a block.
Blocks increase cohesion, serve to lift heavy burdens, and help making sure that everything functions smoothly. Therefore, have one! Thank you for editing. :-)
Fut.Perf.☼16:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
So it doesn't look like it... I don't think the restrictions were that onerous as such (Coren might have called them more ridiculous than harmful). What Jack wanted was surely to be trusted, at last, after all this time and all his good work; and, therefore, to that end, to have no restrictions.
When the ArbCom weighs good against bad consequences of their actions and sanctions (as I hope they sometimes do), they seem to me always to underestimate the trust factor, and also the power of wiki-friendship. They are a little myopic and oblivious that way, as are so many other wikipedians. I bet they were surprised, healthily so, to see John Vandenberg blank his pages over this. And the worst thing Risker and Coren did may have been to radicalise the famously mild RexxS and drive him out on a limb.
[6] This a T-Rex, mind you, and an object of Bishzilla's (admittedly wide-ranging) romantic interest!
[7]Bishonen |
talk13:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC).
Ah well, it was worth a go. I suspect there are some in the community who will never forgive. I do wonder though - I think the vote would have been close. Not the wholehearted endorsement Jack's looking for, but close.
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
22:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Go further, just what was promised; and given that the old accounts are scuttled, there's no reason for them to be blocked. Damned,
Jack Merridew22:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
A/R/E request
I just noticed your Enforcement request. I'm unsure of the propriety of commenting there, but the IP-editors and new accounts popping up on the FAC review page are also pretty blatant signs of off-wiki coordination. The new user account
Sucamilc is registered mere hours after it was nominated for FAC, but in the first edit finds their way to the FAC page and cites Wikipedia guidelines at me. The IP editor 72.234.212.189(
talk·contribs·WHOIS) exhibits remarkable familiarity (with a sadly biased interpretation, but still) with the article's history over “4 years”, and their manner of writing is eerily familiar, which makes me suspect it is an instance of block-evasion or socking. (131.118.144.253(
talk·contribs·WHOIS) is just
BenJonson who's forgot to log in)
I'm expecting more of these to pop up, as indications are the several little web forums and mailinglists they keep will consider the current article achieving FA as some kind of ultimate defeat to be disrupted at all costs. --
Xover (
talk)
08:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Xover. You'll just have to use your native wit and make the call yourself. All my years on Wikipedia, I've enjoyed the good fortune of being able to avoid
WP:AE. (Didn't know how lucky I was. Horrible template.) Socking technically belongs on some other board, but I don't see anything improper about presenting it together with the personal attacks and such. I agree about the signs of off-wiki coordination. If you'd put the accounts and signs into my Enforcement request (now newly spruced up), it'll be in convenient form for me to take to a checkuser. Could be worth trying.
Bishonen |
talk08:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC).
Could you find some evidence suggesting which sockmaster is behind them? In that case, it would be worth filing a CU request at
WP:SPI. The BenJohnson request can probably be handled separately.
Fut.Perf.☼09:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
While I do see some echoes of Nina's prose style in the IP's comments, I don't really see enough to point any fingers. From the prose it could equally well have been Smatprt, but he's been rather meticulous about adhering to his topic-ban (as he understood it), and absent clear evidence to the contrary I really wouldn't expect that from him. A quick check of WHOIS for the IP doesn't particularly suggest anyone either. If I'd had anyone specific in mind I'd probably take it straight to SPI, but I fear it's far too inconclusive. I will however post the above comment to the Enforcement request as at least a point of information. If it stays as calm as it has been the last few hours I'll be a happy camper, but I'm seriously worried there will be an influx of similar stuff that will essentially sink the FAC. --
Xover (
talk)
17:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see the result of your AE request at
WP:AE#BenJonson. It seems that the problem is now under control. If not, open a new request. This is a sufficiently obvious problem that even random admins will probably assist, even without another AE. You only need AE if you think topic bans are required. Thanks,
EdJohnston (
talk)
16:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Any guest is cordially invited to improve the caption of the image. Are you there, Swedophile?
Someone can always be relied on to lower the tone: Thanks Eve, nice apple, said Adam, but er… aren't you supposed to get your kit off?
As usual, Bishonen's pet is trying to get his nose into the food basket.
But, My Lady, I was asking for your cherry, not your apple.
You look like some sort of Nordic heathen, so make sure you eat it with your mouth closed and keep that nasty, unhygenic animal out of my Harrods picnic hamper.
Bishzilla eats all the naughty little vikings. ] Yum, little viking users! Flavourful! Been long time! Where
Sleipner? Zilla partial to taste of eight-legged horses! Where good friend
Fenris wolf monster?
bishzillaROARR!!14:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
The dropped apple turns into a bathtub draining counter-clockwise through a vortex over the plug hole. Bishonen is impressed. Clever old Famously! With a scream, Little Stupid drains through the vortex and disappears. Oh-oh! Get him back! Now!
Bishonen |
talk14:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC).
Fortunately, Famously is accustomed to removing littl'uns from plumbing and quickly unscrews the
waste trap, allowing a rather dishevelled 'poddie to run free once more. --
Famously Sharp (
talk)
20:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Is 'Please post messages below' a request or an instruction? Either way, Chère, I'll comply. I'm back from my much-needed wikibreak and ready to get to work. As a gesture of solidarity with Gold Hat, I've made my own sock to partition my editing & watchlist. Taking a leaf from the twins, I thought it would be useful to have an avatar that could be a little more 'radical' when necessary. Many thanks for the
inspiration! --
Famously Sharp (
talk)
01:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Darwinfish, a great admirer of Famously Mild, runs off in horror when he sees the scary fishing rod page. ] Yikes! Where did good-hand account go!?
darwinfish02:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC).
Still around
Thanks for the note. I've been inactive, but I might get around to doing something on Wikipedia when I have time.
Yes, I'm okay -- sore from walking 15 km to get home from the office because the trains stopped running, but okay -- but other than massive inconvenience and some isolated structural damage Tokyo was okay, unlike those poor people up in Sendai and Miyagi prefecture.
Personally, I was astonished at how fast Wikipedia whipped up an entry on the disaster, and how, ironically enough, I knew too little -- despite being in the middle of the thing -- to reliably contribute. --
Calton |
Talk04:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I read about Sendai. It's only too easy to imagine Armageddon in a university town (I'm a uni teacher myself). Great to hear from you!
Bishonen |
talk05:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC).
Just posted on Pump - I blocked
Adam Cuerden on Thursday night for a couple of hours (to keep him from digging a deeper hole), and when I tried to unblock him it gave that same message. In the end, I reset the block end date to 10.00 as the town hall clock struck the hour, and that worked.--
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
22:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Baby, will you please quit crying? Don't make me strap you in to the car seat and take you for a drive. That seems to be the only time you sleep!
Tex (
talk)
16:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Bishzilla cautiously straps Baby Tex into pocket of spiderman suit. Baby begins to snore faintly. ] Go to sleep, all little users! [Gosh, Bishzilla is as mild as
User: Famously Mild these days! A bad business! Darwinbish looks at her with distaste and suspicion. ]
bishzillaROARR!!23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC).
(pfft .. hey - it's been a while since I did this WP thing, luck I remembered "HOW" to sign my sig ... well ... 2 outta 3 times anyway. :) — Ched :
? 10:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Uh... thank you. It's not actually necessary to alert people who post in an ANI thread that there's an ANI thread they may be involved in. But I appreciate it.
Bishonen |
talk05:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC).
Could you restore the userbox and take it to MfD please? I don't think this out-of-process deletion was appropriate because it is controversial and there is not currently consensus for it on the ANI thread. Thank you — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
12:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with MSGJ. There is no speedy criteria for this and admins shouldn't be speedy deleting things via IAR without a heck of a good reason. I don't see harm in letting it hang out for a week. Please restore and take it to MfD.
Hobit (
talk)
15:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) No, I'm afraid I won't do that. Anyway, I see Prodego already has, which is fine by me. In my opinion, I had good reason to speedy delete that userbox. Personally, I dislike all political userboxes, and therefore dislike all or nearly all of NYyankees51 boxes; but that wasn't the reason I deleted the "heartbeat" box. Political boxes are currently allowed, and I go by that, not by my personal opinion. The reason for my deletion was instead that I don't think the heartbeat box is a userbox at all. Consider the definition on
Wikipedia:Userboxes:
A userbox is a small colored
box designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's
user pageas a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles.
The userbox definition will perhaps stand some stretching—many boxes are social rather than being anything to do with collaborating effectively, and the community seems to like it like that—but not this much. The main problem is that the heartbeat box is not a communicative notice about NYyankees51; it's more like a polemical statement on a forum (compare WP:NOTFORUM). Socially, it's extremely aggressive, and I'm quite unimpressed by NYyankees51's defense that it's merely "medical fact" etc. Sorry, NYyankees51, but there is no way you can be unaware of how touchy and inflammatory this issue is. My
WP:AGF will only go so far.
Bishonen |
talk15:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC).
I'd like to offer my thoughts on this topic. I share the idea that userboxes of this nature are not helpful to WP.
It seems clear that the userbox in question fails to meet the criteria of WP:Userboxes, in that it is not communicating, per se, about the user (although it does provide information from which one can infer, rightly or wrongly, that the user is opposed to abortion).
It is also not clear that the contents of the userbox, in at least its original incarnation, was
verifiably true.
As a thought exercise, consider that I were to create a userbox that stated "The only real Golden Retriever is the
American type".
The content of this userbox is not describing me, per se (but one could infer that I have a strong opinion in favor of American-type Goldens)
The content of this userbox does not appear to be verifiably true (per the referenced article).
Would this userbox be subject to deletion? I suspect that in practice, no, because, while controversial perhaps to some other Golden Retriever aficionados, it is not as controversial as positions on abortion, politics, or religion.
Yes, Joe, in theory the Golden Retriever box would be subject to deletion, for the very reasons you outlined. And No, Joe, in practice, it wouldn't, because I can almost guarantee that no-one would be bothered. When the lineage of Golden Retrievers becomes as inflammatory a topic as abortion, I may revise my opinion. Cheers, --
Famously Sharp (
talk)
18:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You can, yes, though you won't necessarily be accommodated. I apply the same conditions as
User:LessHeard vanU. They're strict, so please read them carefully
here and think about them before putting in your request. An extra condition, specific to me, is that User:Bishzilla will eat you if you attempt to evade the block.
Bishonen |
talk01:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC).
I don't find the Enforcer that useful, actually—it's too easy to get out. And no, you can't haz cheezburger, Darwinbish is having them all as we speak.
Bishonen |
talk01:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC).
I would have failed for all of this.
You cannot have any recent warnings for vandalism or other bad-faith edits.
You cannot be "under a cloud." If there is a current discussion at
the admin noticeboard or elsewhere regarding a possible block of your account your request will not be considered.
Wikipedia is not therapy. The more often you ask to be blocked the lower the chances are that I will do it for you.
Of course if I were really a man, I would have just posted tubgirl instead of ban my fatass bitch. Interestingly, it led to a permaban instead of a short one. Except you all here are so weak, you did not keep me permabanned. Tsk tsk.
TCO (
talk)
01:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
TCO, give me your password...I'll make sure you get blocked.
Real men can walk away for a while and then come back if they want to...or not. The weather is nice now; find a bicycle and get to it. Take plenty of pictures...you can upload them to Commons later when you come back. Turtles will be popping their heads out soon...go find some....turtle soup is good for you. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕))02:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I got my fat ass down to 10% bf. Gained 60% average on lifting. And got the measurements from dangesous down to 99/58, 62. And biked a lot. Big salads!!!!!
TCO (
talk)
02:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the fun interaction and with working together...and putting up with me. And with Jack. Hope we can collaborate more in the future. We already got the star, but feel free to help the article get better anyhow!
You just wait till I'm an admin, then you'll see fun interaction, reptile man! [The fun-loving darwinbish smuggles the rattlesnake into Bishzilla's pocket, having first removed the babies. In dulcet tones: ] Oh, Ancestral One! Have you read
Rikki-Tikki-Tavi recently? Check your pocket, but don't look! It's a present!
littleanklebiter00:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC).
You sound like the kind that would have fun working on an alligator snapping turtle article...we NEED GAs. We are not proud. Go plus signs!
TCO (
talk)
00:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
An essay about Wikipedia not being my friend
Hello, Bishonen. I seem to remember you having linked to an essay once, about how Wikipedia isn't my friend, how it doesn't wait for me to come online, and doesn't react when I do, or something like that. I honestly only have a vague recollection (which is why I want to re-read it). Was that you? Does it ring a bell? If so, can you find it for me? Thanks! ---
Sluzzelintalk01:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Noo.. I don't think that was me. It sounds more like Geogre, actually. I'm always telling people not to think they're famous, because 90% of the present editors arrived last week, and have never heard of them.. but I don't think there's an essay about it. Maybe I ought to write one. It's a little sad, though. Who am I to tell people their cherished beliefs are lies, like Gregers Werle in The Wild Duck? (If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably
Henrik Ibsen.) And there's a saying that "Wikipedia isn't your mother"... hmm.. no, I got nothing. Sorry, Sluzzelin.
Bishonen |
talk03:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC).
On-site searching for "Wikipedia is not your ..." gave me "... not your mother", "... not your grandmother's recipe book", and "... not amused", but nothing like what I thought I remembered. Misplaced memories, along with all the other junk. Thank you for your swift response! ---
Sluzzelintalk03:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No, no, I mean, yes, yes, that must have been the source of my unreliable memory! In my head, I must have mixed together Bishonen's comment with Kosebamse's essay, maybe with a little bit of Geogre on the side. Thanks, for making and linking the connection, Kosebamse! ---
Sluzzelintalk07:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I sometimes say "Do not love Wikipedia. It will not love you back.". Especially to people who are surprised and distressed to find that, after extensive devotion, they have no rights, no power, and no effective recourse against abuse. Although I haven't expanded that into an essay. Maybe I should. --
Seth Finkelstein (
talk)
04:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I applied to be on a reality based game show. If I get picked to be on, I think Wikipedia should send me some free t-shirts. Then it would be my friend.
Hamster Sandwich (
talk)
19:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Hamster, long time! If it's a wikipedia-based game show, it'll prolly be your friend and cover you with free t-shirts.
Bishonen |
talk22:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC).
Wikipedia is not your friend because it has too many low acheiving idiots who have no friends (for all too obvious reasons) who join the project to meet new and interesting people and then hinder the development of the project because having joined and found tens of kindred spirits, they are then encouraged to boost their low self-esteem and become admins and thwart those trying to write the project.
GiacomoReturned23:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
/me, crushed: ] Yes.. yes.. I know who you mean, how could I not? :-( [Cheers up, fleetingly: ] But at least I met you, Giacomo! That's broadened my horizons a little! :-)
Bishonen |
talk00:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC).
Indeed you did meet me, and how fortunate you were. But I was not referring to you, but the great multitude of Admins who appear not to have noticed that Wikipedia is not only not their friend, but neither is it a social networking sight or some sort of therapy for the marginally and less marginally insane. Anyway enough of the sniping on such a beautiful spring morning; I was awoken today to hundreds of little birds cheeping happily outside my window - what an enchanting sound. If they do it again they are dead!
GiacomoReturned08:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm.. OK. (Ungracious Darwinbish-type answer, just because this reminds me of how much I want my access to the OED back. :-() Giacomo and Malleus, maybe? Tony1?
Bishonen |
talk01:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC).
Well, I have online access to OED as well as Credo and ODNB through my local library's subscription, so you could always 'ping' me if you wanted something looking up or confirming. Tony will know because a notice was posted at FAC, but I'll attend to Malleus and His Excellency immediately. --
RexxS (
talk)
02:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Words of one syllable
Click here. Under "useful things", click "range contribs", copy and paste either the IP range or a list of IPs into the box. Submit. That'll give you the last 50 anon edits from your range. ;)
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 01:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC
Ooo-kay. [With crazed optimism. ] I bet I'll understand most of that tomorrow morning! (Currently 4:30 AM in this timezone, yawn.. )
Bishonen |
talk03:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC).
One syllable
God, you make this hard. So: Add the eye-peas to
this list. Click. Find range. Put range in box. Click eye-pea list. Click. Check for good faith eye-peas who are not mad at the Bard. Block if you want. Done. I hope this helps. If not, poke me.
NW(
Talk)02:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you've reached your monthly limit on free help from NW. It will be $15/month if you would request help in the future, and $30/month if you use one of those
silly square thingies.
NW(
Talk)04:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, for... You won't believe this, Tex. I went get
User:Baby Stupid for some monosyllabic baby conversation, but now he's been blocked! By
User:Erwin, for "abusive username" (what? It even says on his babypage that he's Little Stupid's sockalternative account !) Anyway. I don't get to unblock my own sock, so I've e-mailed Erwin, and also asked HJ Mitchell to help. Sigh, this family is getting to be more trouble than they're worth. It's your fault, you know, Bishzilla! Your Bishapod has started breeding like a rabbit, what did you have to create him for? (Bishzilla sighs in complete agreement. Has long regretted creating Little Stupid. )
Bishonen |
talk16:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
Bishonen, it doesn't look like Erwin did that on en-wiki; his block log here is
empty, which I guess makes sense since he isn't an en-wiki admin. I think this is a "global lock"; I know almost nothing about these, except that lowly en-wiki admins can't do anything about them (it appears that if it was a "global block" of an IP, we could, but I don't think we can unlock named accounts. You might ask someone smarter than me for confirmation, tho). Perhaps the block message has more info? Or perhaps there's an equivalent of... (I usually hate to advise anyone to do this, but) ...ANI on meta? It appears, if the email is unsuccessful, you can ask for help
here. --
Floquenbeam (
talk)
17:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Ha! If the little babies weren't so cute, we'd have to throw them out with the bathwater, wouldn't we? Abusive username. Hehe...who is it abusing? I doubt "Little Stupid" minds having a Baby Stupid around! Anyway, come to think of it, ever since all the socks alternative accounts started showing up, Mighty 'Zilla has been much more boring maternal. When was the last time she ate a newbie?
Tex (
talk)
17:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Floquenbeam. There was no block message. It took some ferreting about to find the block, in fact I'm not sure I could ever find it again. I suppose I could appeal... but then it's a little embarrassing, you know. "What do you mean abusive username, sir? The baby is merely named after Bishapod's pet name Little Stupid, and Bishapod is Bishzilla's sock, and, er.. Bishzilla is my sock, so there!" Why do I get a nasty feeling Meta would tell me to get lost and it's all my own fault? Life is very complicated. Maybe I'll simply leave the little bugger blocked. He's pretty useless anyway. Tex, your baby may be cute, but this one ain't. [/Bishonen surveys her sock drawer. Is depressed. ]
Bishonen |
talk17:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
Cheer up, Chere. You could get an admin who knows what they are doing to add Baby Stupid to the en-wiki's Global Whitelist. See
WP:GlobalBlocking:
* Local whitelisting — A user who is globally blocked can be unblocked locally (to edit the specific wiki concerned only), by any
administrator, at
Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist.
It may be for the best, as it would allow Baby Stupid to edit here, but prevent him from rampaging around the rest of Wikimedia. --
RexxS (
talk)
17:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Well, how about adding the baby sturgeopod to the local whitelist? In the unlikely contingency that I understand what RexxS says, that should work, shouldn't it?
Bishonen |
talk19:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
Hopefully I've warned you enough that I'm over my head here. ("Well, then why the hell do you keep coming here and saying stuff?") In the unlikely event I understand what's going on: there does not appear to be such a thing as a local whitelist for account names; the global block whitelist is actually a local whitelist for globally blocked IP addresses. But a "lock" appears to be different, and as far as I can tell does not have a similar whitelist, and cannot be overridden locally. I hope that I'm wrong, and it's quite possible I am; I can't even find a log of Baby Stupid being globally locked, anywhere on meta, so this could very well be an example of the
Dunning–Kruger effect; I know so little, I don't know how much I don't know. I'm not even 100% sure Baby Stupid is globally locked, it's just the only thing I can think of. Now, I am off to collect my award for "most useless admin". --
Floquenbeam (
talk)
20:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I leave the wiki to its own devices for one day...! I know very little about global b/locks, which is fortunate, since crisis seems to have been averted without my help (or lack thereof!), but if it happens again, I would say your best bet is to contact a steward. I don't know any, but there's a list of them on Meta somewhere. They deal with all things global and I believe they're the ones important enough to make global blocks/locks. As far as I know, you can tell an account is globally locked by opening Special:block and entering their username (as if you were going to block them) and there'll be an "already blocked" message. The reason field usually makes some reference of a global lock and the steward responsible.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
O... K. Well, that actually sounds reasonably simple. It was a Dutch steward who blocked the poor mite, and who fixed the problem after I had fired off a stern e-mail. So much for the dangers of getting involved with the wikipedia
crèche!
Bishonen |
talk22:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
Huh?
'Nishidani, your move of only his proposed new text was frankly a little confusing, sorry.'
Wut? Sorry, I thought that bit was part and parcel of your comments. It was confusing, anyway! ;-) (Effortfully checks the History. It was Paul. Maybe I should go and annoy him, too!)
Bishonen |
talk21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
Hi Bish! Can I ask you to please take a look at
Matti Nykänen? I've just done a major copyedit, and just wanted someone to check that the sources, which are mainly in some north-European language I cannot fathom, are accurately reflected in the text. Seems to be a controversial characterstripper, so I hope you can help ensure that the article is
WP:BLP compliant. Thanks, --
Ohconfucius¡digame!03:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Oh, those sources are in Finnish, a language extravagantly unlike my own. (Finnish isn't even Indo-European.) I don't understand a word of it. Appealing to
WikiProject Finland is probably your best bet.
Bishonen |
talk17:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC).
Thanks. I knew you were from somewhere up there, but had you for being from a few kilometres further east! ;-)
Swedes are more extrovert than Finns. (And less extrovert than the rest of the world.)
Q: How can you tell if a person is Swedish or Finnish?
You are sure to know - where is the place to nominate categories for deletion. I have found this silly nonesense here
Category:Haunted houses which is not only bollox, but unencyclopedic bollox. If it's allowed to remain, then Lady Catherine should become an admin and preside over it.
GiacomoReturned07:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You can see from the edit summary -- I'm using
igloo. I used to use
twinkle, and still do, some -- igloo automates most of the process but is really bad at some things (currently, it's still being written), whereas twinkle is easier to use on a case-by-case basis.
Gscshoyru (
talk)
13:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The media file you uploaded as
File:Theophilus Cibber as Pistol.png is missing information as to its authorship (and or source)
, or if such information is provided it is confusing.
Although images may not need author information in un-controversial cases, or where an applicable source is provided,
such information aids those making use of the image, and helps verify the copyright status of an image.
If possible, please consider updating the media information page to make the authorship (and or source) of this media clearer.
If the media is your own work, please consider explicitly including your user name or using the {{own}} template on the media information page.
I was trying to rescue it, not get it nuked. If you can't give an exact citation, try and provide as much information as you can recall, like "Source= Archive image now in public domain" or something :) .
Sfan00 IMG (
talk)
22:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't recall a thing, but I've looked again, and added an excruciatingly detailed description of (obviously) the right image from the British Museum catalogue, and the age (created c. 1733) and the author (a certain mr. Anonymous). The images out there seem to all come from Wikipedia, though not all acknowledge it, and I've mentioned that also. So I still don't have a source, sorry. Please feel free to change my input if it isn't the right kind.
Bishonen |
talk23:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC).
And I've added {{keeplocal}}to all the Bishzilla images, to counteract the template which currently recommends admins to move them to Commons and delete them on en.
File:Bishzilla spin.gif had had this done to it by some bad person, AND also had a recommendation on Commons that it be deleted on arrival! Useful to be an admin sometimes, even though I don't know what I'm doing half the time — I
undeleted the en.wiki sucker, haha. Incidentally, Famously, do you think it would be safe to put it back in the "Images of users" category on Commons? :-) A very noble user by the name of Pieter Kuiper had put it there (what a charming man, Bishzilla was delighted), but then a bot had come along and boringly changed it to "User page images". :-(
Bishonen |
talk21:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC).
Speaking of 'Zilla - she's such a great comic character. Have you ever considered writing a children's book based on B.'s adventures? Or better still, a children's book that's really a book for adults. Just a thought ...
Gatoclass (
talk)
05:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Comic.. ? [Bishzilla is nonplussed. ] Not usually thought of as "comic" ! [A little haughtily: ] "Popular", "amiable" and "warm-hearted" spring more readily to mind — example, little Gato see
Zilla arbcom vote! [Bishzilla starts to plan a rather sad, immensely moving, book about herself on arbcom. ]
bishzillaROARR!!11:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC).
Absolutely - change it back. "User page images" is an ambiguous category as it may be expected to contain images of 'user pages'; "Images of users" is a much clearer category and is naturally preferred on Commons. Anyone who has followed the adventures of Arnie in the 'Terminator' series will understand the dangers of letting bots override humans, so the next time it happens, drop this image on the bot owner's page with a stern warning. --
Famously Sharp (
talk)
05:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Kent until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ♦
Dr. Blofeld09:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
If I'd have thought you'd actually want to talk without lolling at me I'd have asked you first. I've caught a snippet at
here which says she was a minor actress. That book source you added is very good but we need a good range of sources to write a good article about her. It is exactly the sort of subject we need on wikipedia, imagine all of the stage actors missing from like 17th century etc. But we do need a few sources... Mmm I think maybe its the period and subject which accounts for the very poor coverage of her perhaps?...
In regards to your comments. Honestly I had no idea there was so many against infoboxes. I'd have to agree for biographies which rarely contain any useful statistics beyond date of birth and place of birth and spouse. Maps are my thing, so I thought it was a good thing to identify where in the city it is. If I had my own way we'd have our own proper Atlas project and the ability to make much better quality maps. ♦
Dr. Blofeld13:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you find the page numbers of the book and add citations? I've withdrawn it and added a bit from what I could find, I think the severe lack of sources is more due to the period, I am well aware of hundreds of notable actors from the same period which are barely mentioned in books. She was a minor actress but her roles perhaps meet guidelines.♦
Dr. Blofeld14:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, no, I can't find the page numbers I'm afraid. Can't and don't want to. Come on, it's a dictionary! Alphabetical! I remember once reading in the MLA Handbook — don't remember which edition — that they deplored the bureaucratic practice of putting useless information, such as page references to alphabetical works, into citations. Also, as far as I remember it, the Mary Kent entry is perhaps a page long, so I believe a reader can navigate it for information without the help of a pepperpot of superscribed note numbers (which would all refer to the same page).
I don't really think she has poor coverage, in relation to being a minor actress. It's significant that her death date is unknown — I've done quite a few actor stubs from the period (they're listed towards the end of
this page, in case you wish to deleteconsult them), that go with the long play articles The Relapse and The Country Wife, and I've seen that normally, while the birth date for actors may well be obscure, when they died is reasonably well known . The Relapse is sort of illuminating about Mary Kent, and puts the high point of her career into context. If you'd care to look for her in that article, you may get a sense of her notability, such as it is. But otherwise, I think the stub already gave the information there is. It could be expressed with more puffery, of course, and I could list one or two performances from Van Lennep, William (ed.), The London Stage 1660—1800: A Calendar of Plays, Entertainments and Afterpieces Together with Casts, Box-Receipts and Contemporary Comment Compiled from the Playbills, Newspapers and Theatrical Diaries of the Period, Part 1: 1660–1700, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press — an extremely reputable source — in order to list that book as a reference, but meh, there's no real point, only a puffed-up point. Plus, I'd have to traipse to the library.
About your new references: I don't think Pearson is a very good source (shrug). It's an academic book and so on; just not very good. Elizabeth Howe is fine, but the info you refer to her is all in Highfill as well, so I don't quite see the point, other than formally achieving your "more than one source" desideratum. (Is that supposed to be a rule? Every stub needs more than one source or it should be deleted? I don't think so.)
As for your vile suggestion that the period and subject are less than fascinating, what can you mean by it? Snort.
Bishonen |
talk21:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC).
I don't understand your conversation, but I can explain why there are three different ways of writing every simple (one-edit) diff. Say you want a diff for the edit that turned page version A into page version B.
Thanks, Hans. I've often stumbled across pairs of diffs for the same post, so I knew there could, somehow, be two — I had no idea there were actually three possibilities. That's kind of scary. Sorry about the conversation. Less Heard doesn't always understand his own conversation, I feel.
Bishonen |
talk21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC).
Although Jack would have wanted you to use {{diff2|423597625}} which links as [10] - this respects whether the viewer is logged on via the secure server or not. As you can see, you actually only need the diff=423597625 from the first of Hans' examples (which is what shows up in your watchlist btw) to create a link for the diff you wanted most of the time. In memoriam. --
RexxS (
talk)
00:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Ignore all that paranormal rubish above. I expect you have all been wondering where I have been - Well I'm off the yacht and back in London for the week (obvious reasons - No, I will not disclose my secrets of the Royals, allthough, I may "tweet" to you all from the Abbey during the dull bits on Friday. Poor dear little Kate (obviously Catherine, like me now) is so eager to learn of my advice for a long and happy marriage - so I am very busy, but why am you here you ask? well poor dear Giacomo needs some help here
[11] - so pop along and help. Now I must go, the poor dear Queen keeps pestering me for advice on what to wear (I keep saying to her: "is
Ms Westwood really your sort of thing") and what title to give darlingest William (it's going to be Lancaster - you heard it here first) and that Jimbo man; I keep telling him, I already have my "Plus 1" sorted out, but will he take "no" for an answer? So much to do and so little time, I do will wish I had a dull, humdrum little life like you, dearest little Mrs Bishonen. Do take care.
Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (
talk)
19:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I think Giacomo seems to be doing quite well in his charitable work giving reading lessons to the lower classes. What odds do you have on Lancaster m'dear. In the right place, 5 will get you 10 on Kate becoming the Duchess of Dagenham (argent, a Ford Escort gules fesswise surmounted by three pallets retrait in base, each bearing the inscription "Omnes ex":) --
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
21:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Does the inscription mean "All bring your exes to the party"? That might improve my humdrumness a bit, though I'm far from expecting to reach the zany heights of bestowing barnstars of diplomacy on User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You're one of a kind, Elen!
Bishonen |
talk22:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC).
LOL! I have to admit, what I was thinking of with young Master Wolfowitz was what used to be termed 'shuttle diplomacy' - where some poor politician ran to and fro between two warring parties, earnestly entreating them to rethink their position, a thankless task which he carried out without any prompting. As to the Duchess, while 'all bring your exes' might well make for a more exciting party - perhaps more along the lines of the marriage of
Caroline of Brunswick, I was actually thinking more of the frequently strikebound Ford car plant at Dagenham.
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
10:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, the Late Lady Catherine and I both lost our shirts - who remembered that the Queen had Cambridge in the bag! And the bookies must have been relieved when Wills borrowed daddy's Aston Martin, instead of riding back to mum's gaff in either the pram or Cinders coach.
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
08:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Random hello
Just a hello to my fav consumer of Japanese metropoli (are Japanese disaster jokes in bad taste these days?) --
Lyncs (
talk)
23:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
['Zilla stuffs all little Japanese users and also User:Calton tenderly in her pocket for safekeeping. ] Jump in, little Lynx!
bishzillaROARR!!23:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC).
Qwyrxian, please stop reverting 125.162.150.88. His message is welcome, and I will respond to it as soon as I get a chance.
Bishonen |
talk14:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
Would you mind creating a category for your alt-accounts/sockpuppets? It's hard to keep track of them all. Thanks,
Tijfo098 (
talk)
12:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not me refusing point-blank, but I have to ask: why do you want to keep track of them? I think the idea makes them a little nervous. And it's not like they're all over the place. They come out and play on this page of mine, on their own talkpages, and on the pages of good friends who are glad to see them. Any other appearance is the exception, and invariably in a self-explanatory context. For instance, if some stranger mentions Bishzilla, the matriarch of the clan, 'Zilla has a certain tendency to immediately appear in the same thread and say something — not something contentious or political, let alone to VOTE or anything like that— but most likely simply "RAWRRR?" That seems helpful, if anything, to people who may have been confused by the original mention: "Aha, so it's a user!" Or even, in the case of the exceptionally smart reader: "Aha, perhaps a sock!" Things were different when she was an admin, admittedly, but that's all in the past now.
[13]
Category.. no, it doesn't feel right. Really, it would feel like putting them in jail. I'll send you (and anybody who asks) a list of the family if you like, provided you don't publish it on wiki, or create that cat; how about that? Can't guarantee it would be complete, I suppose; I have some trouble keeping track of them all! :-)
Aren't you the one that trying to make a point because of you continuing to use the word point to make a point? (See what I did there?)
SilverserenC08:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
@Silver Seren: I guess you forgot to mention your real reasons for attempting to incommode me with this new "rule", which must have mystified people who didn't know the background (=your hostility towards me). Supposedly I'm merely your example; actually I'm your target. You're a notorious waste of space on WP:ANI,(
[15], end of post) and now I find you on my page cheerfully acknowledging that you were merely trolling WP:PUMP, too. ("I knew it wasn't going to work" — but you suggested it anyway, didn't you? Do you even know how classic
troll behaviour that is?) What makes you think you get to post on this page? Take your bad faith somewhere else.
Bishonen |
talk20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC).
I knew it wasn't going to work because 1) All of your friends were going to be the first to comment and it was just going to cause a snowball effect. I made the proposal to see the opinions of other people and I got a good explanation that the point is to directly focus on disruption by alternate accounts. And, yes, while your actions prompted me to make that proposal, you are not the only person by far that has a bushel of alts and you are by far not the person who uses them the most disruptively. The only issue is that the majority of users that have a ton of alts and end up being disruptive are also established users who have a bunch of friends to back them. I didn't make the proposal to "troll", as you put it, I made it to see the general opinion of such alt accounts, as such things really aren't very clearly defined in policy pages. (And I commented on here because Barong (Jack Merridew) is trying to use this to make jabs at me, since i'm on the list. I'm not going to comment on here again.)
SilverserenC21:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Aha, you "knew" your proposal was going to get shot down because all of my friends would comment? Nothing to do with it being a stupid proposal? Out of the 13 people who commented on it, there are 3 I have ever spoken with, to the best of my recollection: the "snowball" and "bunch of friends" consists of Barong, Hans Adler, and Heimstern. Your world is a weird place with weird accusations. (You may reply if you have something to say.)
Bishonen |
talk08:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC).
I don't think it's a secret that Jay and I don't see eye to eye on that particular subject. That, in fact, is the point of having a diverse committee.
As to the tone, well, since he recused he's "just another editor" commenting on that matter. If we started coming down onto editors every time they are snippy or offensive on arbitration pages (where tempers and feelings are unfailingly frayed) then... well, it sure would be quiet out there. :-) We've always been much more forgiving about misbehavior on case pages than we would be elsewhere. I felt his comment was best left without a response on the request page. —
Coren(talk)23:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Somehow I get the impression that being "just another editor" carries less weight than those who are not "just another editor"; Am I right? It may be better to judge on the strength of the argument, rather than the name of the contributor - wouldn't you think? And I'm sure you'll understand that although my feelings have been more than frayed by the present discussions, that's no reason for my temper to be raised. An angry T-Rexx would not be a pretty sight. --
Famously Sharp (
talk)
03:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
You're missing my point, or I'm making it wrong. I used "just another editor" to mean exactly the opposite: nobody gets more weight because of who they are or how connected they are. —
Coren(talk)11:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, if the AC have started treated recused members like "just another editor", it's none too soon, and I'm glad to hear it. I've been around long enough to see startling abuses of "recusal": recused committee members who throw their weight around and bully the rest of the committee just as usual; who are involved parties yet get to read and contribute to the AC mailing list (which is an important venue during a case) just as usual... and I've been around long enough to have my complaints dismissed with "oh, he probably doesn't actually read it and he's a friend of ours, assume good faith Bishonen!" Encouraging to see the worst of the AC old-school-tie system fading away, even if there's been a lot of foot-dragging; I wonder, for instance, if the committee is aware of how badly my supposed access to the ML worked during the 2009 Jimbo/Bishonen case. That was supposed to ensure that "nobody [=Jimbo] got more weight because of who they were." I hope that's all history. (Out of curiosity: do John and Casliber at present have full access to the relevant part of the mailing list?)
Bishonen |
talk14:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
(
edit conflict) I'm glad to hear that, Coren. Please accept my apologies for my lack of understanding, but I find that's an inevitable consequence of the medium in which we are communicating. While we're examining communication, could I be so bold as to ask you to have another think about your attitude to Jack? I know that you don't have a high opinion of him, but is it possible you are also misunderstanding? I still think that if you looked afresh at his contributions for 2009 and 2010 (even a tiny sample of them), you might find that his net contribution to the encyclopedia was a long way into the positive. Everybody agrees that he can be spiky and doesn't suffer fools well, but many of us are guilty of those offences, and we aren't required to carry the stigma of ancient sanctions as a result. --
T-RexxS (
talk)
14:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
(
edit conflict) FWIW, Arbcom has a secondary mailing list; when a member of the committee is recused from something controversial, the supplemental list is broken out of hibernation, all discussion related to the topic is shunted across to it, and the member in question is temporarily unsubscribed. Arbcom is considerably less corrupt than a lot of people think; if the shit ever does hit the fan, the Arbcom archives are where the subpoenas are gonna be aimed, so it's much more by-the-book than you might believe. There's also the obvious point that if Arbcom were really working as a cabal cooking up deals behind the scenes, we wouldn't have quite so many situations (including this one) where it's impossible to get anyone to agree on anything. The Arbcom mailing list isn't so much "stitching up backroom deals", but more "OK, whose turn is it to reply to [insert crank-of-the-day] this time?".
WRT this particular case, I'm coming round to the view that the right way to stop Jack being singled out for special treatment is to keep the one-account-without-good-reason-to-do-otherwise restriction on Jack, but to spread that ruling out project-wide, even if it means sending Zilla and Catherine into retirement. The time sucked up by endless "is this account legitimate, is that account legitimate?" threads must add up to an impressive figure by now; a straightforward "no more than two accounts for anyone and they have to be clearly linked" rule for everyone would have saved most of this time. –
iridescent14:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, that tells me the present arbcom isn't in fact aware of the problems with my supposed access in that old case. Never mind, why should you be? It was IMO never a question of corruption anyway, but of
WP:COMPETENCE. Just apply
Hanlon's Razor. :-)
Bishonen |
talk18:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
This member of the present arbcom certainly isn't, although obviously there are still some like Brad who were around at the time. Whatever various conspiracy-mongers may claim (you know who you are) there is no secret database of past problems (the mythical Arbcom Archives are actually a few humungous text files with names like "all emails received in January 2010", and no sane person would read them unless they really had to). All I can talk about is how things operate now (e.g., Elen of the Roads couldn't see any discussion of RH&E when her evidence against him was being discussed). –
iridescent18:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Good thing arbcom can't dictate policy, huh. Why is it that everyone "in power" seems to think they know what's best for everyone else? I never thought Iridescent would become one of "those" people when she was elected to the arbcom. Retire Bishzilla? BOOOOO!!!!!!
Tex (
talk)
16:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
See, the thing is, Iridescent falls for the seduction of the dark side of the sock anyway! Once you move away from a straightforward "no more than ONE account for anyone and they have to be clearly linked" rule for everyone, you've lost any chance of getting agreement to it. Some people will give you good reasons for two accounts; some will explain that three are needed. And so on, until you get to six (for 'Shonen, 'Zilla, 'Poddie, the Darwin twins, and a spare). A rule of one would have the saving grace that there's a chance Geogre would still be with us had it existed from the start, but realistically, that's all too late now. Once you've accepted that people need/like having a few accounts, you've got to accept that under current rules Jack is discriminated against. And don't forget that since his socking days of 2007/2008, Jack has consistently edited from only one account until he felt the need to protest his outdated restriction by kicking against it with Gold Hat. One can only assume that had he not made a fuss, he'd be kept under indefinite restrictions until the heat death of the universe. --
Famously Sharp (
talk)
16:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
A rule of one would never work, since there are a lot of legitimate reasons for two accounts—a lot of people have a separate account for insecure terminals, or a second account with a shorter password for use on phones and the like where entering the recommended lengthy-string-of-random-characters password isn't practical. If I were designing Wikipedia from scratch, I'd have the rule be "no more than two active accounts, only one of which has advanced permissions of any kind and both of which are clearly linked. If a third account is required for reasons of privacy or segregation of edits, a written request must be made to the Bot Approvals Group for bot accounts, or to Arbcom (or a successor body set up to handle this kind of appeal) for an account to be used for any other purpose."
What a far-fetched analogy, Iridescent. What does Barong have to do with that editor? Is the ac aware of the last time (to my knowledge)
an arbitrator lied to our faces while swearing he was telling the truth and was an example of integrity to us all? Does anybody nourish a pressing desire for a rerun of that ? If not, should we perhaps stop electing arbs, potentially dishonest as they apparently are?
Bishonen |
talk22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
That's perceptive, but still not quite there :) If you can be firmly convinced that two is the magic number, then someone else can be equally firmly convinced that the number is three, and so on. Believe me, you'd never get consensus. And as for Jack, the restriction he wants lifted is actually "whatever the four-year old restriction is" - I assure you that the form of the restriction is immaterial to him. It's the existence of any restriction after such a long time that bugs him.
I actually did some work with Matisse not so long ago on Wikisource. Well, we were both editing the same document, which is about as close as collaboration gets there, so it was quite a pleasant experience. But you're wrong about my attitude to the possibility of a rerun in Jack's case; I'm a sucker when it comes to assuming the best in people. It's disappointing when you trust someone and they let you down; but when someone repays the trust you put in them and reforms, that makes it all worthwhile. The opposite, pessimistic view of humankind is too depressing to consider. Steer clear of it. --
RexxS (
talk)
22:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, RexxS: Maybe you're right, but the problem is that Admins and Arbs work in so many areas where putting hope in people is foolish, because we've been disappointed so many times. I know there is disagreement with the motion that I posted (that is currently listed as passing), however, I will say this. As I said there, Barong (I'm using the recent account name, he asked to move away from the JM name), really shot himself in the foot. Maybe administrators and or the committee should have blocked the Gold Hat account in the first place, rather then telling him "stop doing that", since that seemed to just encourage him. As I said previously, his actions with the JM account (deliberately compromising that account, and later the Barong one was almost like he was doing a behavior straight out of
Option B of WP:NOPONY) and constant poking at others via the IP address gave me no confidence that he was going to fly right, (considering a community discussion to ban JM looked like it was going to have a good chance of passing at one point, continuing to be intransigent and pressing the point was at best unwise.) Finally, I hope JM/Barong decides at some point to come back and show by his actions that he can fly right and avoid trouble, then we can discuss lifting the one account restriction. I've never denied that he's made really good edits, and if he could avoid the behavior that's caused problem, would be a real credit to the encyclopedia.
SirFozzie (
talk)
22:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Fozzie, all that would be well and good if indeed admins and arbs had said "stop doing that" about the Gold Hat account, but they did not. T. Canens decided to ask the committee for clarification and got a big "meh" out of them. Then once Jack wanted restrictions lifted, it was suddenly nothing of the sort. The lesson here seems to be that one should not ask the committee to clarify things, for, like the elves, they will answer both yes and no.
Heimstern Läufer(talk)23:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
(
←) Well, I don't speak for any other arb, of course, but I clearly remember saying that the Gold Hat account was a technical violation of the ban, almost certainly not worth sanctioning over, but profoundly unwise. Perhaps, in retrospect, it would have been better to be more strict then and block him — but it didn't occur to me that he (or anyone else) could mistake "not disruptive enough to intervene" with "perfectly okay behavior". —
Coren(talk)00:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
@ Coren: He had the Gold Hat account since June 2010. He communicated at various times with four different admins using the Gold Hat account—Shell Kinney, T. Canens, Bish, and myself—before he posted to Arbcom asking for a lifting of his final restriction. He likely felt that under these circumstances asking for official permission to carry on with it was merely a formality. So I imagine it was quite a shock to find that the last arbcom restriction would not be lifted, in spite of the years of productive editing, and the tacit agreement of at least four admins that the Gold Hat account was OK. I would encourage you to re-think your stance on this, Coren. --
Diannaa(
Talk)02:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's the crux of the issue, Diannaa. After his contributions to other Wikimedia projects in 2008, and his contributions in 2009 and 2010, did Jack have a right to expect that his remaining restriction should be lifted? In my view, he did have that right, because we are promised that rehabilitation is possible.
The restriction was placed in December 2008, and was respected for two years. Who is going to tell me and the rest of the community that two years of positive contribution is not long enough to earn the right to have someone's restrictions lifted? He had certainly received enough signals that it was enough, and the tragic part is that Jack wasn't in a position to ask for a review on the second anniversary of his unban (Dec 2010).
I still think that the "joke Mexican bandito" second account was unwise, but never disruptive to the encyclopedia. It seems to me that ArbCom has now enforced the letter of the law with no regard to the spirit, and to the net detriment of our project. Pity. --
RexxS (
talk)
12:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Though it's hardly news that the committee is overly focused on Da Rules and insufficiently focused on the encyclopedia. I mean, that's why people who bother to stand up for neutrality against the raving nationalists get sanctioned equally with the nationalists themselves. Rules Are Rules, and woe betide the one who breaks them or
ignores them.
Heimstern Läufer(talk)14:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Swedish allotment system FAR
I have nominated
Swedish allotment system for a
featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets
featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are
here. P. S. Burton (
talk)11:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't think why poor Mrs Bishonen is so concerned; it's not as though Mr FT2 is one of our elected leaders - or ever likely to be - is it? If people want to drone on, it's those forced to read it that I feel sorry for, what ever sort of person would ever read beyond word 120 of an arbitration statement?
Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (
talk)
22:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Well it was nice, and unexpected, to get a crisp "yes" in reply from Roger and Risker. I was frankly expecting more of a "Personal attack removed" type of response, so that's cool. As for Bishzilla, she was
amusing herself too much to really need an apology; more than I've ever done with those admin tools, in fact. Maybe I should return them to her. [Bishzilla eats the meerkat. Nom nom. Then stands on her head in an effort to understand the
Katana piped link. No soap. ] Now make up your mind, people; is Zilla supposed to pick her teeth
with viking helmets or samurai swords?
Bishonen |
talk23:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC).
Re unexpected: I know I risk sounding even more of a wisenheimer by so doing, but I can't help linking to
fundamental attribution error. As a simple application, most people would believe that Bishzilla ate the meerkat because she is a monster. Bishzilla probably believes that she had to eat it because it asked for it. The truth is usually somewhere in between.
HansAdler14:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Über allen Gipfeln ist Heimstern Läufer! [Bishzilla sticks the little Heimstern in her pocket to save his wisdom for later. ] Got more meerkats, little Hans?
bishzillaROARR!!19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
Heim, a tenor in a more peaceful mood, breaks into "Am See" D. 746, hoping so much that 'Zilla will not evaporate the lake and burn up the stars with her fire breath.
Heimstern Läufer(talk)23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. Maybe Schubert not best vehicle for Zilla vocal resources. (Bishzilla switches to her well-known rendering of Ole Man River).
bishzillaROARR!!23:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC).