![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Let me be the first to say welcome back dearest Bishonen. Sadly though it is hello and goodbye. I am off to a place which has not yet attained the standards of civilization to which I am accustomed. I may be on the internet tomorrow, I may not. I may stay away longer and attempt tp discover on behalf of my great nation the lost civilization of Vidalia. The again I may stay in NY. Then again I may go on to Canada where I see a need for some charitable work. Speak whenever. Welcome home. Giano | talk 16:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You guys are here already? That's so sweet! I was going to say, the salon is now open for business, please join me in a cup of tea or coffee! Make yourself at home, have a glass of champagne! Ignore the rain of frogs, bring your brollies! Bishonen | ノート 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC).
Have a cozy cuppa! .. dave souza, talk 19:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Two questions:
android 79 19:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Darling! I am so sorry I missed your call, and so pleased you left your card. How delightful the salon is open again. Indeed, we've all been quite bereft while you were gone. All the usual gathering spots had the same dreadful people and the same trite conversation as last season. The theatre has been dull - except one perfectly horrid opera which has the most pathetic excuse for a soprano, screeching away but everyone's ignoring her - really, simply too dull. Oh, I did have a secret admirer for bit - he was quite devoted, but then he spoke with some of my other beaus and became discouraged, I believe. But now you're back, and you simply must tell me about your excursion! Did you in the end decide on Arctic rather than North Pole? I am all attention. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Who do you think you are banning Fighter for freedom? I hope you can tell I'm being sarcastic. That guy is obviously on some kind of drugs. Well you got one pshycopath out of Wikipedia. Good Job! Ifeelfine 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Vsmith's block of Theodore7 was actually February 10, a month ago... — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 23:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I have undone your 2-week block and replaced it with an indefinite one (and the protection of his UT page) because he continued to make the same legal threats on his UT page. I encourage you to review this action and give me feedback on it and, if necessary, reverse me. —
BorgHunter
ubx (
talk)
01:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do the psychos always make the legal threats? Ifeelfine 22:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
there aren't enough in my hopper, else I'd leave one; so instead, just Hello! +sj + 01:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
A tour of America in 18th c. British literature has been e-mailed to you. It lacks a conclusion, but I did ok for writing it all in a day. Geogre 23:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. This is in regards to the upcoming Wikipedia improvements Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0 and Wikipedia:Stable versions, which have the intentions to provide stable versions of articles suitable for prints or publishing.
I've noticed you have written several articles about Swedish matters. If you feel some of these are decent enough to deserve recognition, you are encouraged to nominate them at Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board/Swedish quality articles. In the end, our articles should be comparable to what is expected from the Encyclopedia Britannica. If it currently isn't, but you feel you have spent a considerable amount of time on it, you are still encouraged to nominate it, so that your work will be recognized and others can continue to improve on it. Don't be shy! :-)
Fred- Chess 11:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The comma examiners and gnat inspectors. See my talk page for an example. (Someone had done the immensely constructive job of removing all apostrophes in dates in Oroonoko, and I reversed it.) I could say more vitriolic things than I have said already, in fact, but this goes into the overfull file of "rancor that profits no one to let out." Urgh. Geogre 01:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (Looking for a bell tower to climb.)
Somebody just created Category:Swedish cheeses. Don't they know how hard researching Swedish cheese is? As far as I can tell, no anglophone has ever taken an interest in the subject. Why is that? It there something they're not telling us about these cheeses? Are they secretly just awful? (I have to admit, the only cheese I've ever been unable to eat was my first and last try of geitost (yes I know it's not Swedish, but if Giano can say I'm from Idaho, maybe I can be allowed this stretch), but perhaps I got a bad batch.) — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 04:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
But I want to know! Short tons or metric tons? Tons or tonnes? Displacement tons? Deadweight tons? Harbour tons? Assay tons? Freight tons, gross registered tons, water tons, How many tons? *bounce bounce yap yap* KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I could use a hand here. I removed offensive content from his userpage, but was reverted by
User:Flamingspinach, and now he's TheEmoEater has gone into full-on troll mode.
android
79
19:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is an interrobang: " ‽" and some Spanish punctuation marks: " ¿" " ¡" -- ALoan (Talk) 11:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-- TheEmoEater 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Bish, I'll take a look at your references in a few days, but I'm a bit busy right now. u p p l a n d 10:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I haven't checked the references yet, but I expanded Ekholm's bio a little. There is more to say about his meteorological contributions, but I just don't understand enough meteorology to do that. u p p l a n d 18:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
For some reason I can read emails but not reply to them, I'm on a strange connection so it probably is something to prevent me communicating with the outside world, bur does not prevent me posting here. Indcidentally this confirms my view that most of the editors here are probably convicts. I am tied up for most of the day anyway - so can you keep on eye on the palazzo for me, especially te rose tinted image which keeps disappearing on favour of one which looks more like a Florentine Penitentionary (prisons on the mind I wonder why). Giano | talk 14:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
A quick "thank you" for the swift block on this vandal. I was having a hard time reverting his/her "contributions" they were coming at such a rate. A quick block was definitely needed. Thanks! Gwernol 18:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see my interest enhancing bear has been thoughtlessly and callously (and if I may say so - to the page's detriment) removed from your new page however do not despair I have found some more.
Giano | talk 17:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen! I've been sent by Harro5 to request your help. I understand you were a huge help on Caulfield Grammar School, and I'm hoping to join your ranks with my own school, Hopkins School. The article has already been through its first PR, an ill-advised FAC, and is closing out its second PR. After that and a few final dabs (I'm trying to get a good digital map of the campus, eg) I'd like to try my hands at the second FAC. Is there any chance you could give it a good once over, change what you can, and LMK if anything major needs alteration that you know of? Thanks! Staxringold 00:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen -- Have limited time here right now, but wanted to ask you about any history/information you might have on Sean Brunnock. On the Pottery article, (see discussion page and archive) for the past couple of months, he has been a source of contention with other users. Since I've been mostly away, I've only been "hit" a couple of times. While citing Wikipedia rules, he follows by applying them to his own opinions and arguments, but not allowing the same courtesy to others. He also does not appear to understand the idea of concensus, or the fact that any given topic can be seen from differing perspectives by people in other disciplines. He also discounts any personal or professional opinions by editors, except his own, of course. I am not interested in censuring him, but I also do not see any way of working with him in a constructive manner. Any information or advice would be welcome. WBardwin 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You may be interested to read this article by a critical former follower that discusses the Wikipedia article on Prem Rawat and also Wikipedia in general. Andries 09:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It is peculiar to me, Bishonen, that you refer to "zealot patience" in regard to the Prem Rawat article, but fail to make the same assessment about Sathya Sai Baba, Andrie's life project here in Wikipedia. From my perspective, I am interested in having a solid, stable and NPOV article in Wikipedia about Prem Rawat, the same I wish for about any other subject. I oppose any attempts to make any article a vehicle for the disparagement and criticism of a person, in particular when this criticism is made by rather insignificant small group of people that have made it their stated aim to destroy someone's reputation by means of using the Internet and projects like WP to amplify their usually tiny voices. If you want to help with the article, you are most welcome as I have made it very obvious in my communications with you. But injecting yourself in the controversy by praising an editor for "his relentless efforts in attempting to balance the article", without knowing much about the subject, the dynamics involved, etc. and then saying "I don't have the time", it is difficult to understand. Maybe you care to explain. As for your tiredness of "back and forth", believe me when I say that I am of the same feeling. I am working on Core Topics for Wikipedia 1.0 and have to go back again and again to the Prem Rawat article to stop it from degenerating into a battleground yet again. Did you know Bishonen that we reached consensus about 2 years ago about the contents of the Prem Rawat article that Andries, the ex-premies and supporters all agreed to protect (with the understanding that no one what 100% happy with the article, but that we could live with it?). Do you know who challenged the consensus, Bishonen? Andries and his buddies the ex-premies (yes they are friends), They will not rest until their POV is asserted, and that is not a happening thing. NPOV a problem form them? collaborative editing too tedious? so they resort to writing "essays" and then link them to the article. Nice. So, if you are as tired as I am of all this back and forth, please don't encourage it further. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Rather good stuff with the attempted blow to the pole. I did a few minor tweaks and tunings, but I think this is your Jonathan Wild: the story is going to make it one of the most popular FA's of them all. Be prepared to see it translated into several language (and perhaps be told that the German version is better). Geogre 17:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help...i did mean to remove those two from FAC, but I was'nt sure about the proper procedure...once again, thanks. Thefourdotelipsis 21:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I just uploaded a new picture, and I sent you one that I won't upload, via e-mail. There is much mythology about the fellow pictured here, but the truth is that mockingbirds are mean, mean buggers. That's one more reason that Tom Robbins referred to them as the true artists of the natural world. Geogre 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Ow ow ow ow ow. Is anybody well enough to give me a little support here? Why am I all alone in protesting objections like these? No, not you, Geogre, get back in bed! Bunch? Are you suffering from any masculine ailment, or are you at leisure? Bishonen | ノート 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
You poor thing, Geogre. My family is suffering from winter colds at the moment (one case of sinusitis and another of ear infection) but your condition sounds much nastier. Reports of the operations for "the stone" make ones eyes water, so let us hope that it is not that and the drugs works. Get well soon. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The fever broke! The actual pain and stuff is still present, but at least the infection is going away. (Had some fun in a CT scan tunnel last night.) Geogre 11:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Now I have to look. Killer of 40,000 only? Not Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot? That's at least original. The CT scan was a bore, but everything else has been a ride of thrills and chills. The sharp pains are no fun, and now I'm walking like an old man. Ok, like an older man. Every 10 minutes I pronounce myself cured, and every other 10 minutes I pronounce myself ready for the hearse. It's like that. As for Wikipedia -- it's a website. None of these people are real, except me. I'm too odd to be invented. Bishonen's real, but with a different face and name. All the rest...pixels and bytes. Geogre 22:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I make it a rule never to argue with the imaginary people in my head. Geogre 02:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I did not bully anyone or act inappropriately anywhere on the We Belong Together FAC. Do you care to point out a place where I did? Bcrowell2 and Tsavage posted comments anonymously and based on what I've read at Wikipedia:Vandalism, I believed that they were vandals attempting to place words into the mouths of both users. Therefore, I acted very appropriately by reverting the edits. Secondly, because Hollow Wilerding renominated Hollaback Girl at FAC countless times with constant failure, I one-hundred percent believe that you think I will just go ahead and reinsert it. Because of this, I feel obligied to ignore your "warning", however, considering there aren't any articles I've been working on to submit to FAC anytime soon at all, I'll probably keep to supporting, opposing, and commenting. But if there is one that I feel the need to submit, I probably will because I did nothing wrong on the page. I've notified other administrators.
Also, please leave me alone and refrain from following me around Wikipedia. — Eternal Equinox | talk 22:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out not to take this personally. I'm also a bit irritated with people in my personal life, so I apologize if I offended you. — Eternal Equinox | talk 22:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I've recently discovered an article that I may nominate for featured article. Considering you ignored my messages and, as usual, believe that you are right when I was merely compromising with Wikipedia:Vandalism, I may place it at the candancy page within the next day. Then again, maybe not... I may take a wikibreak. Yes, a better idea. However, by no means when I return will I not be appealing this inappropriate ban. Anyway, for now, I'll be gone for sometime and have indicated as so on my user page. Sayonara! — Eternal Equinox | talk 00:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
You know what? Truth be told, I don't understand why we both have to be so stubborn. I know that you're just infuriated with me because you still believe I'm Hollow Wilerding, and I'm just being stubborn because I dislike these accusations. We really need to refrain from being so dark-blooded. Perhaps we should make a friendly approach instead of causing controversy everywhere we go. It's good that you're an administrator, actually, since you're not a fainthearted person and will block someone when they're disruptive; however, sometimes (not always) I think you should do it in a nicer manner. Why don't we accomplish something? I will comply with your "ban" as long as you don't put me out of place, insult me, or purposely refer to me as female. Ignorance is not the key, and I know that I've probably violated civility already, so I should be ashamed. But really, there's no reason for screaming, and I will continue to stand on the grounds of telling me what I did wrong on FAC. I can't correct what I don't know. I could make the same mistakes next time without being aware of the circumstances and I'll be blocked all over again, which would definitely leave me perplexed. Is there a particular article you're working on? Do you want help? Should I assist you? Perhaps I could use some help? I'm not sure. Remember, this is an encyclopedia built to develop history — there is no reason why people should be making enemies. It isn't like we're ever going to meet each other personally and communicate through satillites (spelling?). Do me the favour complying with these words I write so that a pointless conundrum is not refueled in the future. Another thing, however, I still believe the admins who agree with this ban are clearly agreeing with it by bad-faith. Otherwise, there is no reason why we should be breaking the rules. — Eternal Equinox | talk 03:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Haukur, this is just to let you know I've responded to your comment at WP:RFAR; I stupidly posted in the middle of the whole rather messy thread, after your first comment, so I thought you might easily miss it. You made a very good point, but I'm not sure you were aware of all the circumstances. Best, Bishonen | ノート 00:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC).
Sorry :( Your feathers are pretty. Love the balloon article. Haukur 10:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Is now in main space (complete with the amazing foot note system!) It's not been completed to the standard I would have liked, but there was not a lot more I could find out about him, in fact I think this is probably the most complete page anywhere - so it will have to do, perhaps someone somewhere out there can add more. Thanks for the help. Giano | talk 21:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my talk page. Amazingly, that vandal seems to have responded to my requests to stop posting penises. How unexpected! -- OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
My compliments for S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 - that's one great article! One thing that might be expanded is about the search efforts, but I did not mention that on FA because it's not really a deficit - just an idea where the article could be expanded. (I happen to have written a stublet about another foolhardy amateur polar explorer of the time, Theodor Lerner, who was involved in the search during his own ambitious voyages in Svalbard, and I seem to remember reading about the search in my Svalbard history book and perhaps I'll add something if I can find it again.)
Did you happen to stumble over any archives of historical Svalbard pictures? I am still searching for a few historical pictures for my pet article, Bjørnøya, which seems to need a final push to make it to FA (see also Talk:Bjørnøya), so if you had sources or pictures I'd appreciate any help. My complimenrts again, Kosebamse 09:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It's getting there! Giano | talk 22:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Since you are a literary type and since your talk page has become a salon for literary types, I pray that you will allow a bit of shameless advertising here (for a good cause). I'm here to promote the newly minted, bright and shiny, WikiProject Elizabethan theatre!
Ok, shameless advertising over, I'll leave you another creature to add to your menagerie of bears, mocking birds, goats, tulips (!?!), and whatnots. Enjoy a sweet Emperor penguin (with bonus baby, awwwwww)!
A bit of a tone there, wasn't there? Was it absolutely necessary? Bishonen | ??? 16:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC).
Well you have asked two very different questions there haven't you. I hope this not only answers your questions, but makes Gmaxwell understand the Carnildo's behaviour and the Arbcoms response left a lot of anger and emotion behind which sometimes finds the wrong, or at least nearest target.
Tone? The tone sounds to me a little like that of a barrister discrediting the defence's star witness. Necessary? I don't suppose anyone can say with certainty. The problem is that like it or not this particular RFA is even more a trial than most, the fault for that must lie mostly with the Arbcom who in their original "trial" achieved the near impossible result of satisfying neither offender or offended. It is an impossible task to be both judge and jury. Jury's may (and indeed should) squabble legitimately, Judges have to be experienced and absolute in their conviction the sentence is appropriate. Sentencing by committee is always a weak affair of compromises.
Thus, Carnildo seems to consider himself still to have done nothing worthy of such unjust treatment, and the offended (I can only speak for myself) feel that before being eligible for reapplication he should have at least have had to realise how offended people were by his actions, or at least been forced to wait much longer than than the minimum two weeks specified. That the clerk of the court was on Carnildo's page asking him to apply for adminship at the immediate end of that period appeared to me tasteless. On that occasion Carnildo had the sense to decline, but in my opinion should have waited longer still. Let us not forget here Carnildo accused three experienced editors (2 of them admins) of "hate speech" a serious charge in any community, found them guilty and banned them all in the space of a few minutes. Then having caused the situation walked away and left others to sort his appalling mess out. That in itself, should have bought a further charge of is neglect of responsibility. Remember all three he banned were completely innocent, one has left and the two remaining seem to be very hurt still. None have received any explanation or apology from Carnildo.
So there you have it - a whole sorry saga of injustice still claiming victims. I'm truly sorry that GMaxwell has chosen to express in an edit summary he is "hurt" by my treatment of him. He should not have ever been able to find himself in the position of having to defend Carnildo - his loyalty to his friend is a credit to him and I hope he edits again, but he must realise there is far more at stake here than Carnildo being able delete a few images in the future. As for GMaxwell's suggestion about moving on - Certainly I hope so at some time in the future, but with no seeming atonement at all from Carnildo, and so many people voting for Carnildo and thus making light of one's own hurt on the matter it is very hard. I'm go glad you supported me there. Thanks. Giano | talk 08:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
You're not inclined to continue with your Swedisharcticexplorercruft and write about Finn Malmgren? He died in 1928, in roughly the same neighbourhood and under similar circumstances as the Andrée expedition. u p p l a n d 16:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Wiki article got me interested so I read the Polish article (linked as a gallery below) and it has - among other things - a large discovery section.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Bishonen!
We haven't talked in a long-time. I hope you are doing well. I saw your comment on
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 2 and wanted to say I agree completely with your assessment. When I first encountered Carnildo on the
WP:FAC pages I looked him up and was surprised to see he was an administrator. How did that happen, I wondered? Then when I saw that he was trying to get back almost immediately after being desyopped (and desyopped for very good reason), I of course voted no. Anyhow, what have you been working on lately? I've just got
Katie Holmes and
Bruce Johnson to featured status. By my count, thirteen articles I've written have made it to "featured." (See
Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations.) Ave!
PedanticallySpeaking
17:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
So here's one of those passive-aggressive American messages, where I come seeking criticism but probably really just want praise or attention; you know the drill. Have a look at Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, 1663–1672. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 04:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
WOW!! Two of my favorite admins noticed my plea!! Appreciate the release -- and the attention. Best Wishes. WBardwin 08:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Surströmming is apparently a "dangerous weapon"! (Brought to you by the delightful http://www.fishupdate.com, which even quotes our article). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want to read the Satyrs version of the poem, you need me. It was reprinted in The London Stage, but that was the Works version of 1709 (which may be superior, but it's not as mean). Geogre 15:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It's addictive!
And then we get to the people who go to the play solely to arrange where they're going to meet after the play, and then we get to the dangers of actually trying to go home after the play, with all of these idiots and killers on the streets with their whores. What a fun poem. Geogre 15:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you find your copy of my edited version of The Play-house? If so, you might want to read it, because the poem visits every part of the theater, from the pit to the box to the gallery. It's quite logically ordered and easier to read for me now than once it was (more obvious). Some of the poetry is pretty bad, as poetry (first excerpt, above, is way too sloppy versifying), and some of it is excellent. Needless to say, the 1709 version is its superior in most respects, but not more honest or sincere. The 1689 version has all the marks of a hot wound on the sensibilities, and the 1709 a philosophical denunciation of the vanity of the Restoration stage. Geogre 20:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen! Thank you again for your assisstance and advice on improving Hopkins School, I have nominated it as an FAC once again, and I hope the article is good enough to garner your support! Staxringold 16:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What you said on Carnildo's RFA made me smile, not the anti-anybody part, just that Wikipedia has a problem that hasn't been properly addressed. I feel a tiny bit validated, but that's a long road back, luckily i've stopped using Wikipedia on a regular basis so the nightmares are less severe. I hope all is well in Sweden, thank you for cheering me up. Karm a fist Save Wikipedia 23:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. There are two things that we need to know to be sure that a work is in the public domain in the U.S. One is when the work was published. If the work was published before 1923, it is in the public domain. Many works are not published until long after they are created, and not every 100+ year-old work has been published. If it wasn't published, the work is copyrighted for 70 pma, so we need to know the date of the author's death. If the author died before 1923, the work is in the public domain. If not, it isn't. It is even conceivable that a work published 150 years ago could still be copyrighted, if the author of the work was young enough to live another sixty-some years. The template
Template:PD-art is actually making an even stronger claim; that the author died more than a hundred years ago and the work is therefore out of copyright in every jurisdiction. I'm not about to go hunt down every hundred-year-old image and tag them as having no source, but they shouldn't be tagged
Template:PD-art if we don't have any information on either publication or the date of the author's death.
Template:PD-old-70 is likely more appropriate, but it would still be good to fill in the information we need to be sure of the claim.
Jkelly
08:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
For information on what plays were acted, and where, one turns to the Stationer's Register for the Tudor period. However, if I want to know what was put on at Covent Garden 1730-1737, what source do I get? I actually need to know. (Yes, I know that The London Stage has some, but isn't there a Wing and Redgrave like source?) Geogre 15:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I'll e-mail the British Library to see if they know of a sourcebook. The information has to be compiled in primary sources somewhere. Because it's 1730-1737, I figure the information should be out there. (By the way, I'm having a relapse and am running 38.2 and 37.78 C fevers, with weakness, headache, confusion, etc. It's freezing or boiling at all times to me, too. I'll be knocked out of work again tomorrow, probably. Geogre 01:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
You know as well as I do that the Master of Revels had to still record and approve plays before the Licensing Act. That's what I mean by a primary compilation. Until 1715, no one put on a play without a license (but the licensing didn't have any teeth, really), and when the change took place in 1715, it was because the Drury Lane folks figured that they had a Royal patent and therefore didn't need a license. If no one has made a compilation of all the MoR records, then that's a thing that still needs to be done. Geogre 11:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah Bishone Dear, just the sort of question you are so well placed to answer [4] Giano | talk 11:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised to encounter this [5] did you know of its existence? Giano | talk 10:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I see you intervened against Bgully last time he tried to get Dbachmann, didn't you? You might want to look at his recent edit history ( [6]). He's now been trying - with his usual lack of understanding of process - to bring an Arbcom case against us, including you. While he is clearly acting against your warning with this, we shouldn't maybe treat this attempt in itself as a renewed offence. If he wants Arbcom, let him get Arbcom, that's his right. However, I also think his repeated removal of the {unsigned} notice which I added to his earlier attack on me here [7] warrants the interpretation that he is persistently upholding and endorsing that attack. -- Lukas (T.| @) 11:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sanssouci! I guess "looks okay" is a compliment, but it is funny how the colour of words means that they are less well written, and using more than one sylalble is apparently "pretentious"! -- ALoan (Talk) 15:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome, shonen, I had momentarily thought you've lost your sanity... :-D What did you mean by "Norwegian Blue" though? Sounds like a new variety of salmon caviar. Pardon my ignorance. -- BorgQueen 17:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I posted this link both in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia but nobody reacted so I thought of asking you, to add iw links to a template that is locked for editing of mortals. See Template talk:Otheruses#Interwiki link to vi:. // Habj 20:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
In addition to everything I have been doing lately, i'm also trying to clear up some theatre image copyrights and such. I have noticed a number of images that are loaded to both Wikipedia and the Commons. When this occurs, isn't it usually common to delete the image on Wikipedia in favour of the Commons images or did I dream that? Thanks, as always!
I have noted your help of Staxringold ( talk • contribs) in bringing the article Hopkins School closer to FA status. I was hoping that you might be able to comment on an article I just recently put up for peer review, Plano Senior High School. The peer review here. I hope that you will be willing to help put this article on the right path for featured article status. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
What howlers on the Main Page today. That article about main pages is a masterpiece of humor! What a roaring success! Hoo-hoo it is to hold one's sides with laughter. Oh, wait: that's right, it never developed. Humor by committee didn't actually work. Humor assigned seems to have not inspired people. Amazing. Who could have foreseen such a result? Geogre 13:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (for one)
I can't act upon information learned in the confessional, the urinal, or your talk page. Still, I hope someone not bound by my oaths sees the confession and nukes the article from orbit (after putting a copy on Tups's user page). 8" thick? I don't think that's his penis. Geogre 01:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I am caught on the horns of a dilemma (always a painful place to be): is it the article that is the April Fool, or your claim that the article is an April Fool... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Mary Hearne is the "novelist" in question. Check out her second novel, in particular. From the account I read of it, it sounds like a real Curllicism. Geogre 03:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I've finally come around to editing a Gwen Stefani article, though primarily just to keep the article's FA status strong and alive. This does not make me anymore HW than she had been while editing on Wikipedia. But the main reason I've come here is to tell you that I've renominated "We Belong Together" at FAC and would appreciate your input since you had objected during its first nomination. Any feedback is welcome and I will attempt to fix all of the errors you encounter or you believe require clean-up, correcting, etc.! Please respond on my talk page if you have any further information you'd like to discuss now, within the future, or never. Thanks. — Eternal Equinox | talk 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Have you seen the new {{ Familytree}} template? It is now possible, with the help of a ridiculous amount of strange wiki-code (producing an enormous amount of even stranger HTML code) to make really good graphic "family trees" looking something like this or like this (removing the border and changing the background colour). I'm impressed. There were actually a number of pages already using this template. I can't imagine why I discovered it only last night. u p p l a n d 06:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
If that's the policy then you should also blank the earlier post Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hijacked AfD which is probably also him. Thatcher131 11:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd love for other folks to look at Wise Blood and see if the mad taggers are right. However, I'm not awfully inclined to take umbrage or candy from a baby or that toy from that fool the speaker's mace. Just a new article to tell about: Thomas Whenstone. It seems that even democracies sometimes have nepotism as bad, nearly, as Giles Mompesson. Geogre 16:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did you put a cleanup tag on Wise Blood? The article is very well written, as far as I can see. (It's mostly the work of User:Geogre, author of many Featured articles.) And a Cleanup template branded on its forehead is very disfiguring and shameful. I think you ought to put an explanation on the article's talk page when you add that tag — certainly when the reason for it is far from obvious, as here. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 19:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC).
Thanks. I don't mind, if someone thinks the article can be improved (not that one, anyway, but I was ticked when someone put Henry Carey (writer) on the list while I had been working on it for months), but I did sort of need to know why or how. Certainly I'm not above writing things that aren't up to snuff. I'm not immune, but the lack of input had me really frustrated. Geogre 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, he is like Mompesson, in that regard. It's always interesting to read plays where a king is criticized for giving too much to favorites ( Edward II comes to mind), as picking unworthy favorites is a sign of bad character, and so is rewarding nephews in a particular way when they show their incompetence or unfitness. You have to look out for them, but you're supposed to show how clever you are by realizing that they'd be better off at the Admiralty Office than with guns under command, and you show yourself magnificent and wise beyond all the ages if you punish your bastard son, the Duke of Monmouth, after he does a little thing like organize a revolt against your brother. Geogre 02:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh the irony. The amazing part is that he actually sees himself as NPOV. Whether that's self delusion or dishonesty is a distinction without a difference. FeloniousMonk 21:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
They're kind of the heart of it, at least in my view, since what I see happening most is the identification of the words with the person and the totality of the person. I know that tends a bit toward the psychoanalytical rhetorical, but in effect that's both the cause and the mode of the problem: identifying the truth with the words, the words with the person, and therefore the jarring of words as the jarring of ideas and the warfare of people. (It's cold up here on the empyrean heights.) Geogre 14:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Swedish military bicycle - no balloon or steering ropes, nor indeed skis, but a "unique chain-operated front brake"! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, now that I understand the situation regarding the "ghost image" pages for images in Commons let me ask something else... Here's what I'm doing, I've created a commons account and I'm now organizing theatre images there. I would like to start adding eligible images to the commons. I've been looking around and have come across discussions on deleting images here on Wikipedia that have already been uploaded to commons. What is the current (if any) admin consensus regarding this? Thanks!
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Let me be the first to say welcome back dearest Bishonen. Sadly though it is hello and goodbye. I am off to a place which has not yet attained the standards of civilization to which I am accustomed. I may be on the internet tomorrow, I may not. I may stay away longer and attempt tp discover on behalf of my great nation the lost civilization of Vidalia. The again I may stay in NY. Then again I may go on to Canada where I see a need for some charitable work. Speak whenever. Welcome home. Giano | talk 16:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You guys are here already? That's so sweet! I was going to say, the salon is now open for business, please join me in a cup of tea or coffee! Make yourself at home, have a glass of champagne! Ignore the rain of frogs, bring your brollies! Bishonen | ノート 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC).
Have a cozy cuppa! .. dave souza, talk 19:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Two questions:
android 79 19:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Darling! I am so sorry I missed your call, and so pleased you left your card. How delightful the salon is open again. Indeed, we've all been quite bereft while you were gone. All the usual gathering spots had the same dreadful people and the same trite conversation as last season. The theatre has been dull - except one perfectly horrid opera which has the most pathetic excuse for a soprano, screeching away but everyone's ignoring her - really, simply too dull. Oh, I did have a secret admirer for bit - he was quite devoted, but then he spoke with some of my other beaus and became discouraged, I believe. But now you're back, and you simply must tell me about your excursion! Did you in the end decide on Arctic rather than North Pole? I am all attention. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Who do you think you are banning Fighter for freedom? I hope you can tell I'm being sarcastic. That guy is obviously on some kind of drugs. Well you got one pshycopath out of Wikipedia. Good Job! Ifeelfine 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Vsmith's block of Theodore7 was actually February 10, a month ago... — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 23:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I have undone your 2-week block and replaced it with an indefinite one (and the protection of his UT page) because he continued to make the same legal threats on his UT page. I encourage you to review this action and give me feedback on it and, if necessary, reverse me. —
BorgHunter
ubx (
talk)
01:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do the psychos always make the legal threats? Ifeelfine 22:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
there aren't enough in my hopper, else I'd leave one; so instead, just Hello! +sj + 01:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
A tour of America in 18th c. British literature has been e-mailed to you. It lacks a conclusion, but I did ok for writing it all in a day. Geogre 23:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. This is in regards to the upcoming Wikipedia improvements Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0 and Wikipedia:Stable versions, which have the intentions to provide stable versions of articles suitable for prints or publishing.
I've noticed you have written several articles about Swedish matters. If you feel some of these are decent enough to deserve recognition, you are encouraged to nominate them at Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board/Swedish quality articles. In the end, our articles should be comparable to what is expected from the Encyclopedia Britannica. If it currently isn't, but you feel you have spent a considerable amount of time on it, you are still encouraged to nominate it, so that your work will be recognized and others can continue to improve on it. Don't be shy! :-)
Fred- Chess 11:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The comma examiners and gnat inspectors. See my talk page for an example. (Someone had done the immensely constructive job of removing all apostrophes in dates in Oroonoko, and I reversed it.) I could say more vitriolic things than I have said already, in fact, but this goes into the overfull file of "rancor that profits no one to let out." Urgh. Geogre 01:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (Looking for a bell tower to climb.)
Somebody just created Category:Swedish cheeses. Don't they know how hard researching Swedish cheese is? As far as I can tell, no anglophone has ever taken an interest in the subject. Why is that? It there something they're not telling us about these cheeses? Are they secretly just awful? (I have to admit, the only cheese I've ever been unable to eat was my first and last try of geitost (yes I know it's not Swedish, but if Giano can say I'm from Idaho, maybe I can be allowed this stretch), but perhaps I got a bad batch.) — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 04:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
But I want to know! Short tons or metric tons? Tons or tonnes? Displacement tons? Deadweight tons? Harbour tons? Assay tons? Freight tons, gross registered tons, water tons, How many tons? *bounce bounce yap yap* KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I could use a hand here. I removed offensive content from his userpage, but was reverted by
User:Flamingspinach, and now he's TheEmoEater has gone into full-on troll mode.
android
79
19:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is an interrobang: " ‽" and some Spanish punctuation marks: " ¿" " ¡" -- ALoan (Talk) 11:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-- TheEmoEater 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Bish, I'll take a look at your references in a few days, but I'm a bit busy right now. u p p l a n d 10:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I haven't checked the references yet, but I expanded Ekholm's bio a little. There is more to say about his meteorological contributions, but I just don't understand enough meteorology to do that. u p p l a n d 18:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
For some reason I can read emails but not reply to them, I'm on a strange connection so it probably is something to prevent me communicating with the outside world, bur does not prevent me posting here. Indcidentally this confirms my view that most of the editors here are probably convicts. I am tied up for most of the day anyway - so can you keep on eye on the palazzo for me, especially te rose tinted image which keeps disappearing on favour of one which looks more like a Florentine Penitentionary (prisons on the mind I wonder why). Giano | talk 14:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
A quick "thank you" for the swift block on this vandal. I was having a hard time reverting his/her "contributions" they were coming at such a rate. A quick block was definitely needed. Thanks! Gwernol 18:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see my interest enhancing bear has been thoughtlessly and callously (and if I may say so - to the page's detriment) removed from your new page however do not despair I have found some more.
Giano | talk 17:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen! I've been sent by Harro5 to request your help. I understand you were a huge help on Caulfield Grammar School, and I'm hoping to join your ranks with my own school, Hopkins School. The article has already been through its first PR, an ill-advised FAC, and is closing out its second PR. After that and a few final dabs (I'm trying to get a good digital map of the campus, eg) I'd like to try my hands at the second FAC. Is there any chance you could give it a good once over, change what you can, and LMK if anything major needs alteration that you know of? Thanks! Staxringold 00:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen -- Have limited time here right now, but wanted to ask you about any history/information you might have on Sean Brunnock. On the Pottery article, (see discussion page and archive) for the past couple of months, he has been a source of contention with other users. Since I've been mostly away, I've only been "hit" a couple of times. While citing Wikipedia rules, he follows by applying them to his own opinions and arguments, but not allowing the same courtesy to others. He also does not appear to understand the idea of concensus, or the fact that any given topic can be seen from differing perspectives by people in other disciplines. He also discounts any personal or professional opinions by editors, except his own, of course. I am not interested in censuring him, but I also do not see any way of working with him in a constructive manner. Any information or advice would be welcome. WBardwin 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You may be interested to read this article by a critical former follower that discusses the Wikipedia article on Prem Rawat and also Wikipedia in general. Andries 09:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It is peculiar to me, Bishonen, that you refer to "zealot patience" in regard to the Prem Rawat article, but fail to make the same assessment about Sathya Sai Baba, Andrie's life project here in Wikipedia. From my perspective, I am interested in having a solid, stable and NPOV article in Wikipedia about Prem Rawat, the same I wish for about any other subject. I oppose any attempts to make any article a vehicle for the disparagement and criticism of a person, in particular when this criticism is made by rather insignificant small group of people that have made it their stated aim to destroy someone's reputation by means of using the Internet and projects like WP to amplify their usually tiny voices. If you want to help with the article, you are most welcome as I have made it very obvious in my communications with you. But injecting yourself in the controversy by praising an editor for "his relentless efforts in attempting to balance the article", without knowing much about the subject, the dynamics involved, etc. and then saying "I don't have the time", it is difficult to understand. Maybe you care to explain. As for your tiredness of "back and forth", believe me when I say that I am of the same feeling. I am working on Core Topics for Wikipedia 1.0 and have to go back again and again to the Prem Rawat article to stop it from degenerating into a battleground yet again. Did you know Bishonen that we reached consensus about 2 years ago about the contents of the Prem Rawat article that Andries, the ex-premies and supporters all agreed to protect (with the understanding that no one what 100% happy with the article, but that we could live with it?). Do you know who challenged the consensus, Bishonen? Andries and his buddies the ex-premies (yes they are friends), They will not rest until their POV is asserted, and that is not a happening thing. NPOV a problem form them? collaborative editing too tedious? so they resort to writing "essays" and then link them to the article. Nice. So, if you are as tired as I am of all this back and forth, please don't encourage it further. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Rather good stuff with the attempted blow to the pole. I did a few minor tweaks and tunings, but I think this is your Jonathan Wild: the story is going to make it one of the most popular FA's of them all. Be prepared to see it translated into several language (and perhaps be told that the German version is better). Geogre 17:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help...i did mean to remove those two from FAC, but I was'nt sure about the proper procedure...once again, thanks. Thefourdotelipsis 21:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I just uploaded a new picture, and I sent you one that I won't upload, via e-mail. There is much mythology about the fellow pictured here, but the truth is that mockingbirds are mean, mean buggers. That's one more reason that Tom Robbins referred to them as the true artists of the natural world. Geogre 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Ow ow ow ow ow. Is anybody well enough to give me a little support here? Why am I all alone in protesting objections like these? No, not you, Geogre, get back in bed! Bunch? Are you suffering from any masculine ailment, or are you at leisure? Bishonen | ノート 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
You poor thing, Geogre. My family is suffering from winter colds at the moment (one case of sinusitis and another of ear infection) but your condition sounds much nastier. Reports of the operations for "the stone" make ones eyes water, so let us hope that it is not that and the drugs works. Get well soon. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The fever broke! The actual pain and stuff is still present, but at least the infection is going away. (Had some fun in a CT scan tunnel last night.) Geogre 11:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Now I have to look. Killer of 40,000 only? Not Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot? That's at least original. The CT scan was a bore, but everything else has been a ride of thrills and chills. The sharp pains are no fun, and now I'm walking like an old man. Ok, like an older man. Every 10 minutes I pronounce myself cured, and every other 10 minutes I pronounce myself ready for the hearse. It's like that. As for Wikipedia -- it's a website. None of these people are real, except me. I'm too odd to be invented. Bishonen's real, but with a different face and name. All the rest...pixels and bytes. Geogre 22:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I make it a rule never to argue with the imaginary people in my head. Geogre 02:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I did not bully anyone or act inappropriately anywhere on the We Belong Together FAC. Do you care to point out a place where I did? Bcrowell2 and Tsavage posted comments anonymously and based on what I've read at Wikipedia:Vandalism, I believed that they were vandals attempting to place words into the mouths of both users. Therefore, I acted very appropriately by reverting the edits. Secondly, because Hollow Wilerding renominated Hollaback Girl at FAC countless times with constant failure, I one-hundred percent believe that you think I will just go ahead and reinsert it. Because of this, I feel obligied to ignore your "warning", however, considering there aren't any articles I've been working on to submit to FAC anytime soon at all, I'll probably keep to supporting, opposing, and commenting. But if there is one that I feel the need to submit, I probably will because I did nothing wrong on the page. I've notified other administrators.
Also, please leave me alone and refrain from following me around Wikipedia. — Eternal Equinox | talk 22:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out not to take this personally. I'm also a bit irritated with people in my personal life, so I apologize if I offended you. — Eternal Equinox | talk 22:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I've recently discovered an article that I may nominate for featured article. Considering you ignored my messages and, as usual, believe that you are right when I was merely compromising with Wikipedia:Vandalism, I may place it at the candancy page within the next day. Then again, maybe not... I may take a wikibreak. Yes, a better idea. However, by no means when I return will I not be appealing this inappropriate ban. Anyway, for now, I'll be gone for sometime and have indicated as so on my user page. Sayonara! — Eternal Equinox | talk 00:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
You know what? Truth be told, I don't understand why we both have to be so stubborn. I know that you're just infuriated with me because you still believe I'm Hollow Wilerding, and I'm just being stubborn because I dislike these accusations. We really need to refrain from being so dark-blooded. Perhaps we should make a friendly approach instead of causing controversy everywhere we go. It's good that you're an administrator, actually, since you're not a fainthearted person and will block someone when they're disruptive; however, sometimes (not always) I think you should do it in a nicer manner. Why don't we accomplish something? I will comply with your "ban" as long as you don't put me out of place, insult me, or purposely refer to me as female. Ignorance is not the key, and I know that I've probably violated civility already, so I should be ashamed. But really, there's no reason for screaming, and I will continue to stand on the grounds of telling me what I did wrong on FAC. I can't correct what I don't know. I could make the same mistakes next time without being aware of the circumstances and I'll be blocked all over again, which would definitely leave me perplexed. Is there a particular article you're working on? Do you want help? Should I assist you? Perhaps I could use some help? I'm not sure. Remember, this is an encyclopedia built to develop history — there is no reason why people should be making enemies. It isn't like we're ever going to meet each other personally and communicate through satillites (spelling?). Do me the favour complying with these words I write so that a pointless conundrum is not refueled in the future. Another thing, however, I still believe the admins who agree with this ban are clearly agreeing with it by bad-faith. Otherwise, there is no reason why we should be breaking the rules. — Eternal Equinox | talk 03:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Haukur, this is just to let you know I've responded to your comment at WP:RFAR; I stupidly posted in the middle of the whole rather messy thread, after your first comment, so I thought you might easily miss it. You made a very good point, but I'm not sure you were aware of all the circumstances. Best, Bishonen | ノート 00:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC).
Sorry :( Your feathers are pretty. Love the balloon article. Haukur 10:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Is now in main space (complete with the amazing foot note system!) It's not been completed to the standard I would have liked, but there was not a lot more I could find out about him, in fact I think this is probably the most complete page anywhere - so it will have to do, perhaps someone somewhere out there can add more. Thanks for the help. Giano | talk 21:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my talk page. Amazingly, that vandal seems to have responded to my requests to stop posting penises. How unexpected! -- OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
My compliments for S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 - that's one great article! One thing that might be expanded is about the search efforts, but I did not mention that on FA because it's not really a deficit - just an idea where the article could be expanded. (I happen to have written a stublet about another foolhardy amateur polar explorer of the time, Theodor Lerner, who was involved in the search during his own ambitious voyages in Svalbard, and I seem to remember reading about the search in my Svalbard history book and perhaps I'll add something if I can find it again.)
Did you happen to stumble over any archives of historical Svalbard pictures? I am still searching for a few historical pictures for my pet article, Bjørnøya, which seems to need a final push to make it to FA (see also Talk:Bjørnøya), so if you had sources or pictures I'd appreciate any help. My complimenrts again, Kosebamse 09:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It's getting there! Giano | talk 22:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Since you are a literary type and since your talk page has become a salon for literary types, I pray that you will allow a bit of shameless advertising here (for a good cause). I'm here to promote the newly minted, bright and shiny, WikiProject Elizabethan theatre!
Ok, shameless advertising over, I'll leave you another creature to add to your menagerie of bears, mocking birds, goats, tulips (!?!), and whatnots. Enjoy a sweet Emperor penguin (with bonus baby, awwwwww)!
A bit of a tone there, wasn't there? Was it absolutely necessary? Bishonen | ??? 16:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC).
Well you have asked two very different questions there haven't you. I hope this not only answers your questions, but makes Gmaxwell understand the Carnildo's behaviour and the Arbcoms response left a lot of anger and emotion behind which sometimes finds the wrong, or at least nearest target.
Tone? The tone sounds to me a little like that of a barrister discrediting the defence's star witness. Necessary? I don't suppose anyone can say with certainty. The problem is that like it or not this particular RFA is even more a trial than most, the fault for that must lie mostly with the Arbcom who in their original "trial" achieved the near impossible result of satisfying neither offender or offended. It is an impossible task to be both judge and jury. Jury's may (and indeed should) squabble legitimately, Judges have to be experienced and absolute in their conviction the sentence is appropriate. Sentencing by committee is always a weak affair of compromises.
Thus, Carnildo seems to consider himself still to have done nothing worthy of such unjust treatment, and the offended (I can only speak for myself) feel that before being eligible for reapplication he should have at least have had to realise how offended people were by his actions, or at least been forced to wait much longer than than the minimum two weeks specified. That the clerk of the court was on Carnildo's page asking him to apply for adminship at the immediate end of that period appeared to me tasteless. On that occasion Carnildo had the sense to decline, but in my opinion should have waited longer still. Let us not forget here Carnildo accused three experienced editors (2 of them admins) of "hate speech" a serious charge in any community, found them guilty and banned them all in the space of a few minutes. Then having caused the situation walked away and left others to sort his appalling mess out. That in itself, should have bought a further charge of is neglect of responsibility. Remember all three he banned were completely innocent, one has left and the two remaining seem to be very hurt still. None have received any explanation or apology from Carnildo.
So there you have it - a whole sorry saga of injustice still claiming victims. I'm truly sorry that GMaxwell has chosen to express in an edit summary he is "hurt" by my treatment of him. He should not have ever been able to find himself in the position of having to defend Carnildo - his loyalty to his friend is a credit to him and I hope he edits again, but he must realise there is far more at stake here than Carnildo being able delete a few images in the future. As for GMaxwell's suggestion about moving on - Certainly I hope so at some time in the future, but with no seeming atonement at all from Carnildo, and so many people voting for Carnildo and thus making light of one's own hurt on the matter it is very hard. I'm go glad you supported me there. Thanks. Giano | talk 08:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
You're not inclined to continue with your Swedisharcticexplorercruft and write about Finn Malmgren? He died in 1928, in roughly the same neighbourhood and under similar circumstances as the Andrée expedition. u p p l a n d 16:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Wiki article got me interested so I read the Polish article (linked as a gallery below) and it has - among other things - a large discovery section.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Bishonen!
We haven't talked in a long-time. I hope you are doing well. I saw your comment on
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 2 and wanted to say I agree completely with your assessment. When I first encountered Carnildo on the
WP:FAC pages I looked him up and was surprised to see he was an administrator. How did that happen, I wondered? Then when I saw that he was trying to get back almost immediately after being desyopped (and desyopped for very good reason), I of course voted no. Anyhow, what have you been working on lately? I've just got
Katie Holmes and
Bruce Johnson to featured status. By my count, thirteen articles I've written have made it to "featured." (See
Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations.) Ave!
PedanticallySpeaking
17:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
So here's one of those passive-aggressive American messages, where I come seeking criticism but probably really just want praise or attention; you know the drill. Have a look at Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, 1663–1672. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 04:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
WOW!! Two of my favorite admins noticed my plea!! Appreciate the release -- and the attention. Best Wishes. WBardwin 08:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Surströmming is apparently a "dangerous weapon"! (Brought to you by the delightful http://www.fishupdate.com, which even quotes our article). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want to read the Satyrs version of the poem, you need me. It was reprinted in The London Stage, but that was the Works version of 1709 (which may be superior, but it's not as mean). Geogre 15:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It's addictive!
And then we get to the people who go to the play solely to arrange where they're going to meet after the play, and then we get to the dangers of actually trying to go home after the play, with all of these idiots and killers on the streets with their whores. What a fun poem. Geogre 15:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you find your copy of my edited version of The Play-house? If so, you might want to read it, because the poem visits every part of the theater, from the pit to the box to the gallery. It's quite logically ordered and easier to read for me now than once it was (more obvious). Some of the poetry is pretty bad, as poetry (first excerpt, above, is way too sloppy versifying), and some of it is excellent. Needless to say, the 1709 version is its superior in most respects, but not more honest or sincere. The 1689 version has all the marks of a hot wound on the sensibilities, and the 1709 a philosophical denunciation of the vanity of the Restoration stage. Geogre 20:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen! Thank you again for your assisstance and advice on improving Hopkins School, I have nominated it as an FAC once again, and I hope the article is good enough to garner your support! Staxringold 16:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What you said on Carnildo's RFA made me smile, not the anti-anybody part, just that Wikipedia has a problem that hasn't been properly addressed. I feel a tiny bit validated, but that's a long road back, luckily i've stopped using Wikipedia on a regular basis so the nightmares are less severe. I hope all is well in Sweden, thank you for cheering me up. Karm a fist Save Wikipedia 23:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. There are two things that we need to know to be sure that a work is in the public domain in the U.S. One is when the work was published. If the work was published before 1923, it is in the public domain. Many works are not published until long after they are created, and not every 100+ year-old work has been published. If it wasn't published, the work is copyrighted for 70 pma, so we need to know the date of the author's death. If the author died before 1923, the work is in the public domain. If not, it isn't. It is even conceivable that a work published 150 years ago could still be copyrighted, if the author of the work was young enough to live another sixty-some years. The template
Template:PD-art is actually making an even stronger claim; that the author died more than a hundred years ago and the work is therefore out of copyright in every jurisdiction. I'm not about to go hunt down every hundred-year-old image and tag them as having no source, but they shouldn't be tagged
Template:PD-art if we don't have any information on either publication or the date of the author's death.
Template:PD-old-70 is likely more appropriate, but it would still be good to fill in the information we need to be sure of the claim.
Jkelly
08:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
For information on what plays were acted, and where, one turns to the Stationer's Register for the Tudor period. However, if I want to know what was put on at Covent Garden 1730-1737, what source do I get? I actually need to know. (Yes, I know that The London Stage has some, but isn't there a Wing and Redgrave like source?) Geogre 15:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I'll e-mail the British Library to see if they know of a sourcebook. The information has to be compiled in primary sources somewhere. Because it's 1730-1737, I figure the information should be out there. (By the way, I'm having a relapse and am running 38.2 and 37.78 C fevers, with weakness, headache, confusion, etc. It's freezing or boiling at all times to me, too. I'll be knocked out of work again tomorrow, probably. Geogre 01:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
You know as well as I do that the Master of Revels had to still record and approve plays before the Licensing Act. That's what I mean by a primary compilation. Until 1715, no one put on a play without a license (but the licensing didn't have any teeth, really), and when the change took place in 1715, it was because the Drury Lane folks figured that they had a Royal patent and therefore didn't need a license. If no one has made a compilation of all the MoR records, then that's a thing that still needs to be done. Geogre 11:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah Bishone Dear, just the sort of question you are so well placed to answer [4] Giano | talk 11:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised to encounter this [5] did you know of its existence? Giano | talk 10:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I see you intervened against Bgully last time he tried to get Dbachmann, didn't you? You might want to look at his recent edit history ( [6]). He's now been trying - with his usual lack of understanding of process - to bring an Arbcom case against us, including you. While he is clearly acting against your warning with this, we shouldn't maybe treat this attempt in itself as a renewed offence. If he wants Arbcom, let him get Arbcom, that's his right. However, I also think his repeated removal of the {unsigned} notice which I added to his earlier attack on me here [7] warrants the interpretation that he is persistently upholding and endorsing that attack. -- Lukas (T.| @) 11:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sanssouci! I guess "looks okay" is a compliment, but it is funny how the colour of words means that they are less well written, and using more than one sylalble is apparently "pretentious"! -- ALoan (Talk) 15:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome, shonen, I had momentarily thought you've lost your sanity... :-D What did you mean by "Norwegian Blue" though? Sounds like a new variety of salmon caviar. Pardon my ignorance. -- BorgQueen 17:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I posted this link both in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia but nobody reacted so I thought of asking you, to add iw links to a template that is locked for editing of mortals. See Template talk:Otheruses#Interwiki link to vi:. // Habj 20:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
In addition to everything I have been doing lately, i'm also trying to clear up some theatre image copyrights and such. I have noticed a number of images that are loaded to both Wikipedia and the Commons. When this occurs, isn't it usually common to delete the image on Wikipedia in favour of the Commons images or did I dream that? Thanks, as always!
I have noted your help of Staxringold ( talk • contribs) in bringing the article Hopkins School closer to FA status. I was hoping that you might be able to comment on an article I just recently put up for peer review, Plano Senior High School. The peer review here. I hope that you will be willing to help put this article on the right path for featured article status. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
What howlers on the Main Page today. That article about main pages is a masterpiece of humor! What a roaring success! Hoo-hoo it is to hold one's sides with laughter. Oh, wait: that's right, it never developed. Humor by committee didn't actually work. Humor assigned seems to have not inspired people. Amazing. Who could have foreseen such a result? Geogre 13:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (for one)
I can't act upon information learned in the confessional, the urinal, or your talk page. Still, I hope someone not bound by my oaths sees the confession and nukes the article from orbit (after putting a copy on Tups's user page). 8" thick? I don't think that's his penis. Geogre 01:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I am caught on the horns of a dilemma (always a painful place to be): is it the article that is the April Fool, or your claim that the article is an April Fool... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Mary Hearne is the "novelist" in question. Check out her second novel, in particular. From the account I read of it, it sounds like a real Curllicism. Geogre 03:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I've finally come around to editing a Gwen Stefani article, though primarily just to keep the article's FA status strong and alive. This does not make me anymore HW than she had been while editing on Wikipedia. But the main reason I've come here is to tell you that I've renominated "We Belong Together" at FAC and would appreciate your input since you had objected during its first nomination. Any feedback is welcome and I will attempt to fix all of the errors you encounter or you believe require clean-up, correcting, etc.! Please respond on my talk page if you have any further information you'd like to discuss now, within the future, or never. Thanks. — Eternal Equinox | talk 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Have you seen the new {{ Familytree}} template? It is now possible, with the help of a ridiculous amount of strange wiki-code (producing an enormous amount of even stranger HTML code) to make really good graphic "family trees" looking something like this or like this (removing the border and changing the background colour). I'm impressed. There were actually a number of pages already using this template. I can't imagine why I discovered it only last night. u p p l a n d 06:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
If that's the policy then you should also blank the earlier post Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hijacked AfD which is probably also him. Thatcher131 11:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd love for other folks to look at Wise Blood and see if the mad taggers are right. However, I'm not awfully inclined to take umbrage or candy from a baby or that toy from that fool the speaker's mace. Just a new article to tell about: Thomas Whenstone. It seems that even democracies sometimes have nepotism as bad, nearly, as Giles Mompesson. Geogre 16:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did you put a cleanup tag on Wise Blood? The article is very well written, as far as I can see. (It's mostly the work of User:Geogre, author of many Featured articles.) And a Cleanup template branded on its forehead is very disfiguring and shameful. I think you ought to put an explanation on the article's talk page when you add that tag — certainly when the reason for it is far from obvious, as here. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 19:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC).
Thanks. I don't mind, if someone thinks the article can be improved (not that one, anyway, but I was ticked when someone put Henry Carey (writer) on the list while I had been working on it for months), but I did sort of need to know why or how. Certainly I'm not above writing things that aren't up to snuff. I'm not immune, but the lack of input had me really frustrated. Geogre 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, he is like Mompesson, in that regard. It's always interesting to read plays where a king is criticized for giving too much to favorites ( Edward II comes to mind), as picking unworthy favorites is a sign of bad character, and so is rewarding nephews in a particular way when they show their incompetence or unfitness. You have to look out for them, but you're supposed to show how clever you are by realizing that they'd be better off at the Admiralty Office than with guns under command, and you show yourself magnificent and wise beyond all the ages if you punish your bastard son, the Duke of Monmouth, after he does a little thing like organize a revolt against your brother. Geogre 02:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh the irony. The amazing part is that he actually sees himself as NPOV. Whether that's self delusion or dishonesty is a distinction without a difference. FeloniousMonk 21:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
They're kind of the heart of it, at least in my view, since what I see happening most is the identification of the words with the person and the totality of the person. I know that tends a bit toward the psychoanalytical rhetorical, but in effect that's both the cause and the mode of the problem: identifying the truth with the words, the words with the person, and therefore the jarring of words as the jarring of ideas and the warfare of people. (It's cold up here on the empyrean heights.) Geogre 14:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Swedish military bicycle - no balloon or steering ropes, nor indeed skis, but a "unique chain-operated front brake"! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, now that I understand the situation regarding the "ghost image" pages for images in Commons let me ask something else... Here's what I'm doing, I've created a commons account and I'm now organizing theatre images there. I would like to start adding eligible images to the commons. I've been looking around and have come across discussions on deleting images here on Wikipedia that have already been uploaded to commons. What is the current (if any) admin consensus regarding this? Thanks!