User talk:Bishonen

Bishonen is semi-retired..

File:Animalibrí.gif

Bookmarks

articles ice fire emigration diffs and links moods bishzilla warning templates removing warnings non-apology apology

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Semi

It's good to see you (semi) back. I've read and reread S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 with great pleasure and am always on the lookout for material of a similar calibre.

Well, join the ranks of unenthusiastic contributors. I've always thought that enthusiastic contribution (or anyway sustained enthusiastic contribution) was a ticket to some sort of breakdown or insanity, so I've been doubtful from the start. It's served me fairly well. (Though I can't claim to have served en:WP all that well. Still, people haven't complained much.)

Another good strategy is to avoid editing on any subject that might appear on the telly in an anglophone country: such subjects attract energetic nitwits.

Please edit as sporadically as you wish, and enjoy yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

RFAR comment

I've moved (not removed, obviously) your comment on the request for clarification on the IRC case to the "statements" section, but did not merge it with your previous one for clarity. You don't need to worry that it'll get less attention because it's not sitting in the Arb's section, I'm pretty sure FT2 at the very least was expecting/waiting for it and will read it regardless of where it lies. — Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 17:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The way it's phrased doesn't make any sense in the place you moved it to. You could at least have left a note stating that you moved it. As for FT2 reading it, it's not a letter to him! It's explicitly aimed at all the other arbs. A good day's work, Coren (not). :-( Bishonen | talk 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC).

You are, of course, welcome to edit your own comment to edit the reference to its location— I moved it because where you had posted it was not appropriate, but I also would not take it upon myself to modify something you wrote. — Coren ^(talk) 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

FGS just link to it [1] before we are all banned for God know what crime telling the truth is. Giano (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Justanother

I was under the impression that community consensus is always in favor of a ban whenever a disruptive user here escalates to cross-wiki disruption. I could be wrong, though ... Blueboy96 19:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I regret how this turned out, but Justanother threw themself overboard with the antics at WikiNews and the socking here. Sorry. Jehochman ^Talk 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The fat lady ain't been heard from yet. Keep an eye on AN, Jehochman. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

I've always pictured you as trim. Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that Justanother has posted a total of eight formal block review requests for his last two blocks, all of which were denied? Good luck with him, although I'm very disappointed with parts of your statement.[2] Durova^Charge! 20:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Chinchilla party!

Let's dance! El_C 01:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello little chinchillazillas, come party in 'Zilla pocket! Is El Commandante birthday? bishzilla _ROARR!! 13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC).

A very merry unbirthday to me!

To who?

To me!

Oh you!

A very merry unbirthday to you.

Who me?

Yes, you!

Oh, me!

El_C 21:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The good old days!

You might be interested to read this:[3] a damnation of our spiteful and malevolent Arbcom, with which I completely concur. It puts things rather as they are - a rarity on Wikipedia these days. Giano (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Did you notice it's by Geogre, quoted from his talkpage? Geogre has just finished up the indictment that he has been writing there, by request, over the past few days.[4] Seems Kosebamse is collecting the definitive RFAR/IRC anthology on his own talk. Not a bad idea. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC).

Yes, isn't it clever of Geogre to be so analytical. What a pity are the Arbs are so hell bent on acheiving their own agendas that they are prepared to stoop to such low levels to acheive their aims. If they had one fraction of Geogre's brain they would not be held in such contempt.Giano (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Did Geogre or you yourself try running for arbcom? (I can't recall). Heya folks, btw. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we did, and very well we did too, as you well know; and it's a great pity for the project we are not on it, as there would be less chatting and a great deal more dedication. Giano (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I was less crazy and didn't run. :) No chance of that happening again anytime soon? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What might be useful is a discussion of what the best attributes of an arbcom would be. I will presume that we don't want everyone to be clones of each other - independent thought is always best. But is having factions and different 'types' on arbcom good in the long run or not? Arbcom has been running for several years now. Have some Arbcoms been better then others, or not? If so or if not, why so or why not? (Horrible sentence, but you know what I mean). We could also discuss whether "short and sweet" (decisive) or "long and discursive" (trying to please everyone), is good or bad for an arbitrator. The answer is, of course, a mixture of both, applied in the right circumstances. Does the current arbcom get the balance right? Carcharoth (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what would be a good idea? A discussion of the selected/elected nonsense. When I ran, I was not picked. In fact, for the empty seats, two or three people with higher votes had to be overlooked. ("Oh, but the formula of oppose/support*log(Namespace edits/articles written) did not favor you" may go where all casuistry ends up, so far as I'm concerned.) When members are selected by one person, that one person becomes all-important to those selected and to the shape of the project in general. Indeed, the reason they are selected remains private and a question of "judgment," and yet the basis of this judgment is obscure. What becomes vital is that the one person know what's going on in every corner of the project, needs to be very well informed, and needs to be informed by his own eyes and with no interference. (Needless to say, I believe that such awareness would lead to selections that look very like the votes, and the more we have seen selections at variance with the votes, the more we have seen "bad" arbs.) Geogre (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What might be of more use, is if the arbs bothered to evaluate a case first [5] rather than dismiss it in a hurry before considering fully. Giano (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

oh ....

I had no idea you'd had these issues, Bishonen. I was about to ask your advice about changes I've made to the FAC-instructions, so if you're still around, I'd be pleased to discuss them.

I do hope you come out of semi-retirement, because you're one of the editors I've most admired. TONY (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano

Giano is frighteningly insightful, which is why he's been targeted so much. I don't think Lar was trying to make him sound bad--I offered as well because anything that helps to deflect trolling from Giano helps Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the concerns, but there will always be trolling at me, because my opinions touch too many nerves and threaten too many people's cosy wiki-lives. I am quite happy to take the flak for that myself. Giano (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

{{{text}}}

. You were nice to me when I was new and unconfident. Very sorry to hear that you have had difficulties. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Judith. :-) Bishonen | talk 13:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC).

Hi there

Nice to see you back, and thanks for your note. I'm still weak-opposing the est FAC. I find it very hard to engage with the writing and the topic. It has improved, but I've just had another quick look and see yet more mediocre prose. I think it should have been withdrawn and overhauled some time ago. That goes for quite a modest proportion of FACs—it's a pity that there's such opprobrium connected with the notion of withdrawing and resubmitting after renovation. I think the directors have a hard time keeping the list down to a manageable size. TONY (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox Easter

Mykola Pymonenko, "Easter morning prayer in Little Russia", 1891, Oil on canvas, 133x193 cm, Rybinsk Museum-Preserve of History, Architecture and Art, Rybinsk, Russia.

Hi Bish, as you probably know, this Sunday the Easter also arrived to the Eastern Orthodox world. To mark this event and make a small present for you, here is the great piece of one of my favorite Ukrainian painters depicting this event in my homeland as he saw it a little over 100 years ago. Enjoy! --Irpen 07:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be just as interesting that Valborgsmaessoafton (sorry for the horrible spelling) is not far away either, as heathen festivities are so very much en vogue... 192.44.242.18 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Irpy, very fine. I note that our Valborgsmässoafton article completely ignores the main Valborg tradition—claiming it's lighting bonfires and/or "singing songs of spring" or something like that—well, la di da. I expect you know the main tradition as well as I do, my dear IP. I'm just listening as we speak to the traditional radio interview with a detox specialist in its honour. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC).

Request for recusal

As you stated in the March community ban discussion regarding Justanother, you are not an uninvolved party. Your role right now is his mentor and I hope that mentorship is successful. It is incompatible with that role for you to also stand in judgment of him--or, for that matter, of me. When the Tango RFAR opened your conduct struck me as mockery the worst terrorist attack in my country's history--an disaster that my nearest relative barely survived, and over which I went to war. When I expressed my shock at what I hoped was an uncharaceristic lapse of judgement, your reaction had the effect of a direct insult. I hope it was not your intention to give offense, but you did give offense: very much so. With things standing this way, I really don't think it was appropriate for you to act as you did at AE today.

I will continue to follow up on the COFS arbitration case (where I named myself as a party) as I deem appropriate. Adequate follow-up is feasible only for persons who have long experience in the case because the individual you are mentoring has used so many different accounts and IP addresses and has followed another editor across projects. I hold no malice toward your mentoree and hope his contributions improve as much as another party's have; a successful mentorship would be best for everyone. Durova^Charge! 16:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of being JA's mentor. Where does that come from? From Jehochman's suggestion that I might want to mentor JA? Becoming somebody's mentor does take some input from the actual involved parties, I believe. Unblocking an editor does not make me their mentor. I've unblocked quite a few users during my four-year wiki sojourn. Am I the mentor of all of them?

As for your disgusting attack on me as a terrorist supporter, I was actually thinking that by now you probably had the grace to be ashamed of it. I was prepared to forgive and forget, since you were obviously upset when you made remarks like those. But I see that that's not required. Instead, you come to my page to ask me to "recuse" from criticizing whatever you may do? Like that absurd forum-shopping of yours at AE? Pfui! Bishonen | talk 16:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC).

I have never accused you of being a terrorist supporter; several people had already approached you regarding your unbecoming conduct, and your aggressive response to feedback has been very discouraging. Please review the history and adjust your statement accordingly. Durova^Charge! 17:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC

Oh, do you think so? For my part I'm careful about what I state. You might care to read the history and adjust your own wildly inaccurate claims:

For your "several people had already approached you regarding your unbecoming conduct", read:

WaltonOne had approached me regarding my manner of requesting arbitration. By no means about the WTC tragedy. You, Durova, were the only person to read a defence of MONGO (the defender of the WTC articles) as "mockery" of what happened on 9/11. You owe me an apology for that heinous and farfetched interpretation, but I don't expect to get one. I'll settle for you keeping your bluster off my page.

For your "Walton One pointed out the inappropriate mockery of a tragedy. After several days' restraint, hoping that Bishonen would reconsider, I thanked him [6], read:

Walton One criticized my use of Bishzilla-speak for the purpose of requesting a de-sysopping. He gave no hint of 9/11. After an hour (! there's your "several days restraint"), you thanked him. [7] [8]

Please adjust your own random claims somewhere, preferably not here. I'm really tired of you and the way you spray accusations around a 360° circle. Bishonen | talk 18:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC).

I find it inconceivable, in view of history, that Durova even utters the words like "unbecoming conduct". This is the utter attack on the commonsense and human intelligence. On top of that, there is this invocation of the terrorism and other stuff which cannot be meant as anything but character assassination. I hear lots of semi-legible riffle that it may be "time" for Durova to apply for her adminship back, that she "suffered" enough, "paid the heavy price" and all that other stuff of this kind. What I find especially startling that stuff along those lines was said even by one sitting arbitrator. "Punished"? How is the desysopping a "punishment"? How is it a bigger deal than a single 24-hr block.

Yes, people may differ on the propriety of some jokes (Zilla-speak was certainly a joke obvious to anyone) but there is nothing Bishonen ever did that would warrant any words that starts from "unbeco..." It is also clear that Durova did not learn any lessons and remains all involved in sooperseekret activity still failing to realize what was really wrong with her last debacle. And what was wrong was not a mere judgment error. --Irpen 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm

In response to this I believe that you may be right. :) But surprising, some date his life at 1693, and there was a publication attributed to a "Benjamin Motte" from 1691. But wait, theres more... he had a father with the same name. Dun dun duuunnnn. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still don't see him publishing from beyond the grave, father or no father. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

One would hope! Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Snowed under + thinking about it

I've got it in the back of my head, but I'm snowed under in real world work. :-)

--Signing for Sekrit Kim: Kim Bruning, 22:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC).

Sorry about that ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I’ll strive to be the “calm voice” in the future when commenting on challenging issues. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sad that you're gone

You were so kind to my alter-ego Murno Gladst when it was detected that his article page was not from the realm of reality. He has since died, and I see that the user page you so kindly set up for him (instead of tagging him for deletion) has also gone away. Bishonen, it is evident that you are a diligent and kind person, and I'm sad that you are no longer with us. , User:Ravagedhand

Er, thanks... but who are you, Ravaged? The Knight Who Fears the Seafood? Bishonen | talk 17:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC).

Your recommendation

Hello Bishonen,

Looking for positive suggestions. What do you recommend? I'm confused because I thought I was doing what is right. Coaching is welcome...Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You will have gathered that the v-word is wrong for content disputes and/or good faith edits. It's actually a personal attack. I feel so strongly about it that I created that "vandalism warning warning" template (admittedly a bit of a joke[9]), even though it's not in my nature to write templates. Also, you kind of mark yourself by making inappropriate vandalism accusations (and by templating the regulars), because newbies typically do that.

It's easy to say "don't"; I can understand that you want suggestions about what to do. I'm afraid I don't have the time to review DreamGuy's recent editing, so I'll focus on the redirect of The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91) that you refer to on his talkpage. (I'm kind of busy, but please let me know if there's some other managable/small-size spat that you'd particularly like me to look at.) Checking the History, I'm bound to say that I see you edit warring just as much as DG is (which casts a bit of a strange light on Arcayne's current edit summary about how many times DG has been reverted—those reverts were all done by you, and you're skirting the 3RR just as much as DG is..!) Nobody's discussing on the talkpage: not DG, not you, not Arcayne. Nobody at all since March. My first suggestion would be that you write "see talk" and not "vandalism" in your edit summaries, and then write an argument on the talkpage against redirecting the page. Then you'd have the moral high ground, and some basis for criticizing DG, if he doesn't reply (though in my experience he usually does). Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 10:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC). P.S. Se also my post on Arcayne's page.

Bishonen - is it permissable for a single editor to constantly redirect an article against the concensus of several editors concerned with the page without mentioning anything about his or her reasons on appropriate sub-section on the Talk page? Is it permissible for the editor to do so to this day after day, week after week, month after month without putting his or her reasons there? There is a subsection in the Talk page of the article entitled "Regarding the claim that this is a content fork" in which 100% of the editors answer in the negative. DG has never put his opposing case there but has serially re-directed the article against the conscensus. Is he justified in doing so for as long as he likes, day after day, without putting his case in the subsection entitled "Regarding the claim that this is a content fork"? Colin4C (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Bishonen. I guess I did kinda screw the pooch there by not creating a discussion topic and instead expecting others to react to the revert and create the topic themselves. As for tag-teaming, I know it may not count for much, but I would have undone the redirect even if I had not received the message from BH, as I don't think the two are the same topic. If anything Jack the Ripper is a subset of the The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91), and not the other way around, but both are distinct enough topics to stand on their own. This has been pointed out before, in both articles' discussion pages, but I think DG has consistently disagreed with this consensus. I don't mind a change in consensus, but it has to be built, and not enforced by reverts. I've learned that lesson the hard way myself. The reason that I didn't direct BH to the same quote from 3RR was because he seemed to be enforcing the consensus as it currently stands, whereas DG wasn't, and wasn't being very courteous in doing so. Also, he seemed to be at ease with dispensing with BRD; he offered the edit, but didn't choose to defend it through discussion.

Thanks a lot for your comments, though. Your point is made - I should have brought the topic to the discussion page myself. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding Bishonen. I have been reading several of the essays and policies to try to gain better insight. I am confused where you say that all those reverts were me..I reverted twice only on the Whitechapel Murders Article. I did reverts on Jack the Ripper but not more than twice for any particular incident. I do understand that you don't have to commit all 3 reverts..sometimes, continued use of 2 could qualify. I can see that you believe that there hasn't been communication between the editors...awkwardly, there has. The long-standing continued discussion of the Whitechapel Murders article occurs on the talk page for Jack the Ripper as well as the article talk page for Whitechapel Murders. It exists in several threads on the current JTR page as well as in the page archives. In particular the current thread on New edits which is where we were hoping for open communication. His redirect essentially destroys a whole article, somewhat akin to page blanking, and as yet, he is the ONLY editor to have decided that this needs to happen. Others, myself included, believe that it should exist. He moves against consensus. Asking for help on Arcayne's page was something that I did because I knew that many other editors simply must not be aware of the situation..I knew what consensus was and to me DG was page blanking. I wanted to ask an Admin who was aware of this ongoing problem...it takes susbstantial reading following the archives of JTR and other pages such as the one in question. I didn't mean to implicate Arcayne or anybody else.

The actual words of my reverts are those of Twinkle although I do select "Vandal" when making that choice. I found it odd when I first came onto Wikipedia and saw the use of the word "vandal". Having received one of those, I know it can hurt..still on my talk page. I will try to remember what you have told me. Please let me know what you think after seeing the current discussion. Thank you. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Berean Hunter, I should have checked the number of your reverts, instead of hastily going by your words about having reached your "revert limit". However... please note (Colin, too) that my comment above was a reply in good faith to your request for "coaching" about your own conduct. My assumption has been that that's genuinely what you want from me, rather than an opportunity for complaining about DreamGuy. I guess maybe it's a bit of both. As I said above, I'm chary of reviewing DG's behaviour as a whole, because I don't have time to take a good overview of it at this time. Generally speaking, though, I don't doubt that he has been a rude bugger... he usually is. Anyway. Since you mention the thread "New edits" especially, what's your problem with it? As far as I can see, it has opened communication. In fact it was DG that opened communication with it. One last piece of "coaching," if you want it: you're not the first user I've seen blaming Twinkle, or templates, etc, for his/her own wording, But you are fully responsible for every word you post. (Please see the pink box at the top of WP:TWINKLE.) If the standard Twinkle edit summary, or, say, the wording of a template, don't fit exactly what you want to convey, just don't use them.

Arcayne, I appreciate your frankness in taking stock of your own actions. That's sometimes no fun, but probably the best learning process available to us as editors. Regards, all. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

Yes, sorry, the ambiguity error is mine. My self-imposed personal revert limit is 2; hopefully a built-in safety mechanism to keep me out of trouble..but it doesn't seem to have worked (insert smile here). I didn't have a problem with the thread on "New edits", you had stated that we weren't communicating..I was just showing you for your benefit that we had been. He never responded that day but just came back trying to force the edits...but no I'm not wanting to complain about DG...respectfully speaking, I don't believe that you, I, or any of the other contributors involved will be able to remedy the editing environment at JTR. I believe that solution involves getting more eyes reading through what has been happening there..new wikipedians, existing editors, and yes some Admins, too. The current group appear heavily browbeaten and wearied and have gained my sympathy for it. The article needs more contributors...or observers even. After all, if any of us speak up..we get accused of something...so it would have to be outsiders looking in. I hope for better things there but it has been unhealthy for months.

I'm not blaming Twinkle..quite the contrary. I think the term vandal is spot-on & still applies to him through his edits...his actions & words speak for themselves and in time others will see for themselves if they study & analyze his editing behavior. I have. WP:DUCK.

I watched him do it again today but did nothing.

I know you are pressed for time but the invitation is there if you would like to comment/coach on my general editing etc. I am trying to learn from those who afford the opportunity. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to genetics

Hi there, I've written this article as an attempt to introduce the articles on DNA, Gene and Genetics in a completely non-technical and approachable way. I was looking for some good editors with no background in science to look this over and advise me on how it could be improved. Would you have time to help with this? All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm... no, I wouldn't really. But such an appealing little task... and what a handsome animation you've got there... I'll send Little Stupid, who has no background in anything, to make some suggestions in the introduction. Please just revert if his edits are too stupid. He never takes offense. Bishonen | talk 18:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC).

P. S. I'll try to send him back for more later, but he's grading exams. An appropriate task! Bishonen | talk 19:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC).

nomination for deletion of WP:ZN

Hum, I was reading at this little MfD how User:Evula was not amused that no one thought of warning him, and I thought "surely Bishonen is aware of this MfD, right?". Right? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 18:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC).

Come off it

From User talk:Giano II

Thatcher, how do you mean "dispute it elsewhere"? Where would that be? As Ryan points out, it's a closed case. Seriously, where are you advising Giano to dispute it? Mmm? Bishonen | talk 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC).

If the argument is that the AC should be ignored, then anywhere that isn't an AC page would be more appropriate. If a statement that a remedy is to be ignored must be made, I would suggest a user page as the appropriate location. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Like here? Giano removed that with this edit. Should he really have to put it back? Maybe I should go and catch up with what has been happening, or is this just more of the same? Carcharoth (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh please Carcharoth just ignore them - they are not worth it. There is little to choose between the lot of them. We shall have Florence of Arabia, her sidekick on the horse and that man with his organ here soon, all full of wronged righteousness. The Arbcom is now surplus to requirements, ignore them - I do. Giano (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't have to do anything. I'm merely suggesting that that would probably be the place to put it, if you really do have to make this kind of protest. I personally would not put it in that big box because I think coloured boxes of this sort are ugly, but that's beside the point.

I was attempting (seriously) to answer Bishonen's (serious) question. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. No, Giano doesn't have to do anything, and nothing he does is of interest to the AC; hence presumably his frustration. If, against appearances (with your colored boxes), you're interested (seriously) in any (serious) discussion I might offer, here is my shot at it. It's in fact on a userpage (this one). I bet that was widely read ! <sarcasm>. Only one arbitrator (Paul) has even spoken to me (in private e-mail) after the case. After Kirill called me a "problem user" during it. I'd be ashamed if that indifference was mine. I expect it's such selective deafness that is provoking Giano into editing arbitration pages the way he is. It seems to be the only way to stop our top brass in the middle of a yawn. It does not become you to take the attitude you do, Smoddy. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC).

Hey, I'm not quite sure why I deserved this. I'm not exactly sure what the behaviour that is unbecoming is. If it is suggesting that making edits that one knows full well will not stand should not be made, then I stand by that behaviour. Beyond that, I really don't know. As it happens, I had actually read your comments before, and to a certain extent agree with them; some of the comments from members of the committee during that case were not remotely acceptable.

I stand by my (serious) advice not to engage in wholly futile edit-warring and by my long-standing belief that you, Bishonen, are one of the best. I struggle to reconcile this with your strident criticism of me. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'm trying to reconcile your professions of esteem with your indifference to my plight during the arbitration, and your unconcern with the "not remotely acceptable" comments made by arbitrators. An unconcern admittedly widespread in the community and in the committee itself. What I expect of people varies, though. Bishonen | talk 10:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC).

I don't believe I was aware of the "problem user" comment until just now... I limited my involvement in that case to discussion of general principles, rather than specific users and issues, on the grounds that, having been on a lengthy break from Wikipedia, I didn't know enough about recent history. If I did not comment, it was due to fear of making a boob of myself, not to indifference. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to "I'm not quite sure why I deserved this" - you don't, but I'm afraid Sam, you are seen now as part of an Arebcom which is a living disgrace to the project. It's actually not your fault, especially as you are not really one of them, but sadly mud sticks. Perhaps it's time for those connected with this so called Arbcom to come clean, walk away and/or publicly denounce them - that way some atom of respect may be restored. Giano (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of denouncing people. Even if I did think the committee was as corrupted as you make out (and I don't, even though I do think there are non-trivial issues that need to be addressed), my method of going about effecting change would be more subtle than such dramatic statements. I'm far too English for that! If people really associate me closely with the committee, they really should look more closely at my opinions. There are many fundamental matters where I disagree with both the committee corporately and its members individually, even while I think they are good people trying to do good things. I don't tend to see conflict in black-and-white, on Wikipedia or in meatspace. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is why nothing will change. I see a "Gang of 7" who have behaved in a thouroughly disgraceful fashion, they are a complete waste of space and should be removed before they harm the project further - they passed resolutions they had no intention of even pretending to implement, they are liars! Your subtle methods of acheiving change have merely kept them where they are - if that is the "English" way - then the English have certainly taken a turn for the worse. You want to keep liars in power then continue as you are doing. Giano (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

a present for bish - because it looks a bit like the one at the top of her page!

G'day Bish....

I took this photo the other day, and ended up swinging by here earlier for no particular reason, and noticed that you've got a similar one - so I thought I'd make a gift of it!

I hope you're aware that I think your treatment at the hands of the arbcom is absolutely deplorable, and offer you both sympathy, and sincere gratitude for the kind words you sent my way the few time we crossed each other's paths... of the 4 people who issued me with indefinite blocks, you're definitely my favourite!!

Hope you like the pic, and hope you're well! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankee, very pretty. The ones at the top of the page are Bleeding Hearts—or as it might be bleedin' hearts—from an Anonymous Friend. (Hello there, L.) What are yours, PM? Bleedin' trumpets? Bishonen | talk 13:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC).

YES!! You're back!

Bish, this has been a damned lonely place without you here. I too gave back the mop and bucket, changed my username and, well, here I am. Back for more.

It is beyond good to have you back. Welcome, welcome, welcome. The former "Lucky 6.9" in his new guise of --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lucky! Hugs! Bishonen | talk 17:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC).

Back at ya. For some reason, my e-mail keeps kicking back the verification, so my e-mail isn't on file here nor has it been. Doggone, I wish I could send you a PM with my info, but alas, this is a wiki and not a bulletin board. Hugs, squeezes, everything good. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, you need a copy of Playbill to know who's who anymore. I'm glad you're back, Lucky, and hoping you are luckier. Geogre (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Bish, you are the best. I don't think I'll need renomination (I got it back once before), but I don't want it at this time...but if I ever change my mind, there ain't no better friend on one's corner than Bishzilla! Crunch poor old Tokyo beneath your tootsies and we'll talk soon. Yours, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bish dear, are you truly back? (holding breath, crossing little doggy toes) KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Arf arf, little yap-yap, nice to see you back. Well, I comment on stuff in project space from time to time. Didn't actually intend to... but if I see as it might be a lynching in progress... I guess that's the "semi" part of being semi-retired. But as far as writing content, the wikipedia juice has run out of me. :-( Bishonen | talk 12:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

Well, Bishonen, I hope that the wiki-juice for content writing comes back too, because you were always a mighty fine content writer. But maybe you're out there writing a book, or something else worthy of your abilities, instead. If you're not, you should be. -- WikiPedant (one more of your many admirers) 17:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[/me blushes, does a little dance, considers taking up Bishzilla's prideful "drumroll on chest" gesture. ] Too, too kind! Bishonen | talk 20:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

Nonsense! It is very accurate. WikiPedant seems to have an excellent grasp of your skills and the ability to communicate same. I strongly second the sentiment! KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

The only thing that would have meant more would be a support from zilla. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I thought so! The only reason you've become such a good editor is you're dead scared of the dino! Bishonen | talk 06:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

['Bishzilla, offended at concept of scaring little editors, stuffs dauntless little Waterman in pocket of Spiderman suit and heads for Reichstag. ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 06:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

Little Stupid Support ! bishapod splash! 06:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

What happened to "Little Stupid go splat!"? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[Enthusiastically ] Better Little Stupid go splash! ! Little Stupid (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

User:Swedophile too sentimental to leave well enough alone... [10][11] bishzilla _ROARR!! 08:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

Teeheehee... thanks zilla (I'm scared to say that, I think...). :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you are back

Dlohcierekim has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re:You lookin at me?

Gah, sorry, one too many "they're"s without paying attention to what they would be referring to. I need to pay more attention to that. I meant the redirects, not the users. All users are useful, even the semi-retired ones.--Dycedarg ж 19:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

:-) Bishonen | talk 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

Email

Hi, Bish, I've emailed you. :-) ElinorD (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Civ 4

My long essay is done. It's pretty Thomist and windy. My plan is to write a very short, declarative page, but this is the analysis -- meant to be analysis -- that serves as the rationale for that. I blame no one for skipping this essay (it is long) and waiting for the new one. Geogre (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well it was an interesting read, but that last paragraph sounded a bit vindictive :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not! That last paragraph is purely hypothetical. It's no more true than the psycho-dramas. I can't believe that anyone would think that it's anything but light hearted exaggeration or that anyone would ever say such a thing about any of the people who serve Wikipedia in such a noble and important way. None of them even could be held in reproach, given the utterly sober and intelligent manner in which they are (s)elected. Geogre (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolve

I apologize for my rudeness to you and have already tried to make amends with WBardwin. Best --Eustress (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'm glad to hear it. Bishonen | talk 07:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC).