I wish I had a pet chinchilla; I would pet it, and love it, and sitting, and pet it, always. Kitty 12:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish Chinchilla of the Eastside Pride Pack: "You toucha my pumpkin, I squasha your kabocha." Pia 18:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Step this way for the New Beetle Kabocha Squash, please. The oxygen tanks are over on the left." Bishonen | talk 23:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oxygen tanks are recommended for the New Beetle Kabocha Squash, Bishonen? Aha, the chinchilla is using the label to hide a bloated belly then. Somebody needs to add farting chinchillas to the list of issues affecting air safety today. Suggested fine print for the chinchilla label: NASA warning with image from inside the Beetle Kabocha Squash, showing passengers passed out on the way to the ball due to chinchilla fume toxicity. Pia 02:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Diff and link guide
I think I fixed the issue. I had a '|' after my url, which killed the diff. It should work now I think. Best, --Bfigura(talk) 23:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I copyedited a little and moved your section higher up, in the interest of the structure of the page as a whole. I reckoned it's logical to have the sections about different ways of creating diffs and links come first, and then finish with a section about how to put them into your text. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Sounds good to me. --Bfigura(talk) 23:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know I really am becoming psychic, I know I'm always saying it but I think it is true. I wrote this yonks ago and forgot about, then when I became a "II" it was one of the pages I truly forgot about and never put it on my watch list - today I sudden;y and for no reason thought about it - and just look at the immediate edit history - it was my baby crying for me! These things cannot be explained!!! I think I will start telling fortunes on my page, there are already quite a few people's futures I can see quite clearly. Anyhow could you mind the baby for me, while I'm away for a few hours, when I get back I shall give it a few hundred footnotes and add to the "new place". Giano 13:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great... Scott..! [faintly]. The IP and the account appear to be the same, too. How many edits is that? [Bishzilla tucks baby article protectively in pocket of spiderman suit. ] Bishonen | talk 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks - would you like me to tell your future - as a reward? Giano 13:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About 500 edits, starting on 10 October :( All in good faith too, no doubt. Perhaps this can be disentangled on the talk page or List of the contents of Holkham Hall (there was some new material about the estate too). -- !!?? 13:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problems, I have reverted myself so that you can easily sort it out. I left you a message on the talk page. Happy editing. Giano 14:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An exiting new series and category
I have decided to kick the ball off with the start of a new and interesting category on titled people here is the first The del Carreto Barons of Racalmuto. Should you want to help please select a redlink from here. Tha aim is to have the whole lot culminating with the present day incumbent. 15:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Ask Bishzilla
to put this on Bishapod's page. X-D Miranda 02:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matching levels of politeness
I don't give a rat's behind about "civility," because the term cannot be defined, much less put into practice, but I do believe in matching levels of politeness. Always start nice, I say to myself, but take a look at Talk:Ormulum. One hates to be vicious, but I really thought the whole thing was a put-on. No one would be so foolhardy, arrogant, and willful as to put a "cite" tag on a version 1.0 FA without bothering to read it or do some research, I thought. Utgard Loki 12:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA
Thanks for voting on my RFA! Although ultimately it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback. I believe I've discussed the issue you brought up with you before, so I won't continue to do so here, however all I can say is I'm sorry that you thought that instance was enough to set off enough alarm bells that it would determine how you voted. I did not mean for that event to leave as big an impact on you as it did - and I did not think it did as I thought it was over fairly quickly (even though it did end somewhat bitterly), so again, for that I'm sorry. Perhaps if I ever decide to run again I will have had enough experience to override this unfortunate event and I can gain your support. Thanks again.--danielfolsom 22:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope it'll work out that way. Bishonen | talk 15:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
L. Ron Hubbard issue
Hi Bishonen,
I'd be grateful if you could review what's been going on in the last few days on L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Misou(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has been edit-warring to delete references and links without consensus on this and several other Scientology-related articles (check out his recent contributions). Justanother also wants to remove the same links but is going about it in a much more consensual fashion by seeking consensus on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard. This seems a very obvious breach by Misou of the article probation. I can't take action myself, as I've been involved in editing some of those articles, but it seems like a fresh outbreak of the kind of behaviour that resulted in the original arbitration in the first place. -- ChrisO 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher took care of it.[2]Bishonen | talk 20:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You're the best... thanks so much for your help, especially the wordsmithing! ++Lar: t/c 23:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a GA now? Cool. I suggest it's time to take the hoax out, then. Don't you think so? Come on, you know what I'm talking about. Nobody believes there was ever a ship called "the Wetmore," you know. All right, it's pretty funny, it made me laugh. But it's over. Take it out, Lar. Bishonen | talk 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Take it up with the NYT ... :) [3] BTW that article still needs writing! ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Translator stuff
Hi Bishonen,
in case you feel like helping in preparing the upcoming fundraiser, you could take a look at
My take on these texts are that they are close to "copy", i.e. commercial, and the most important thing is that they sound good. The choice might be between 100% accurate and awkward, and 90% accurate and smooth Swedish - then you go for the 90%. I am sure a professional translator could complain about style level and many such things. I think we should be happy if we manage to create texts that works for the purpose. You are most welcome to take a look at all of the texts, of course, but we are especially looking for help with the questions posted on the talk pages above. I have also asked the person who wrote the text, Sandra Ordonez, the Communications Manager of the WMF, and Bastique, the volunteer coordinator, since what happens in these matters I think is very much his domain. You don't have to do anything of course, but if you feel like chipping in, please do so fairly swiftly since this fundraiser thing will be launched soonish. // habj 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a few suggestions in response to your concerns. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks a lot! It turned out the translations of these texts were cancelled, they won't be used... bah. // habj 14:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect deletion request
Hi Bish, could you please do me a favor and delete these two redirects with the artificial history [4][5].
Those are the traces of some user's moving unilaterally a bunch of articles without even informally proposing at talk. I moved those back except these two since the redirect's history require the admin intervention. TIA, --Irpen 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Deleted the redirects. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Juvenile timidus
Amazing acrobatics: only one paw hits the ground! El_CHi, I am new! El_CHi, I am small! El_CHi, I am smaller! El_CHi, I am smallest! El_C
[/Bishzilla fills pockets with the new, the small, the smaller, the smallest. Buttons pocket tenderly. ] Hi, El Commendante, you are the cutest! bishzillaROARR!! 21:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I should note that I use the word small both as a descriptor and a generic name for all the chippies. An average conversation ensue thusly:
Me to squirrel: Okay, I'll give you this peanut. Now go forth and fetch me small!
Oh, sorry about the page. It's the rabbits, I expect. I do archive quite frequently! Yes, I do disagree, I think it's an inherently POV name. But that's not the reason I closed as "delete"; I merely thought deletion was the result of the debate. If you feel strongly about creating the redirect, you'd better take it to deletion review. Regards, Bishonen | talk 23:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
We disagree then. I think a redirect from a POV name to NPOV DAB page is OK. However, I don't think I feel strongly enough to stir up a new debate. I do like the rabbits though. Thanks, SmokeyJoe 05:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is, of course, not an innocent search term. It's a term in use specifically by one group of people. A redirect is a nice way of handling these specialized points of view, in general, if those points of view won't overwhelm the target. Given who the specialized group is, in this case, I rather suspect that "Ethical issues" would very, very soon get the full weight of those persons tipping the article over, capsizing it into the seas of POV war. Probably right to delete, if that will actually deal with the problem. Utgard Loki 11:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or in other words, boating prohibited. El_C 11:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about boasting, is that ok? Then I'll just mention that 'Zilla has plenty of room for more rabbits and their friends and fans in her pockets now, after summary eviction of teh little godking. Bishonen | talk 12:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hints? Never held of it! El_C 12:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should direct User:MER-C to the WP:SDG. My own deluxe RFA nomination from Sarah was replete with diffs. Athaenara is really wonderful and thorough. Her unfortunate interaction with Justanother is an exception from the rule, but I'll let others present evidence if they wish. At the moment I am very busy with other things. - JehochmanTalk 17:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I don't believe you, but what flummoxes me is that any diff I click on—any one presented in the RFA so far—seems to be an exception to the wonderfulness rule. I hope somebody else will present diffs where the being wonderful manifests itself, because I'm a little weirded out by the strangeness. I'd be glad to support, if I could find a reason to. You know—a reason with diffs. Bishonen | talk 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The talk:Subtlety thing really gets to my last nerve, I must say, because I've been there. I've been at the computer, having compiled a mass of information from the DNB,Grove Dictionary of ___, whatever web links look useful, and then had someone tell me that the article should be all about X or Y. Well, that's an odd thing to hear, when one is taking such care, but then, of course, "You don't own the article, and I say it should be about what I want it to be about" gets used instead of argument, instead of discussion, instead of compromise, instead of, frankly, cooperative editing, which is supposed to be what we're about. So, when I see something like that, someone who as a regular user would try to bully and bluff to get her way, I wonder what the odds are that, with the block button, she wouldn't invoke an acronymn and block, invoke an acronym and protect, etc. Geogre 10:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
btw, howdy.
Peace.Lsijohn 20:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Long time, John, hi! Are you sure? "Be polite" (on the talkpage) raises a red flag, certainly... but I don't see anything else obvious. Then, admittedly, I stink at this, being as I am a credulous fool. Bishonen | talk 21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Please, whoever you are, I just want to be left alone, and if you check my recent history I am not prone to "edit-warring." I see that you like to edit certain types of articles, I will stay away from what you have been historically editing. I'm focusing on getting some articles up in quality on the project. But I do not like the speculation about who you think I am. I have received some personal threats off-Wikipedia, and that is all I am going to say about that. Goodbye. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Please, I beg of you Bishonen (talk·contribs), kindly ask this other user to leave me alone. If there are any future conflict or concerns, do not hesitate to message my talk page. But at the moment, there is zero "edit warring" or anything of the kind going on, save for my own talk page. Due to my own personal safety issues off-Wikipedia and various contacts I have spoken with regarding personal threats, I do not wish to disclose anything at this time. Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, please can it, John. There is no rule about disclosing alternative accounts.[6] They only become your business, or mine, if they're used disruptively, for instance to vote twice or to evade the 3RR. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Indeed. And I consider reverting articles back to preferred versions that are months old to be disruptive. You might recall how quickly (and inappropriately) Smee created all the sock puppet pages for me. Now it seems a different set of rules are requested from said editor.
For the record, I have no intention of creating sock puppet pages, however it's also important that this information be available when the RFA is presented. Over 3000 edits in a single month? Reverting articles to 'preferred' versions?
A quick check of the edit history of this 'new' persona will either reveal someone with an IQ of 2000-3000 (if they can begin editing and produce 3000 edits and be this familiar with the rules in their first month) or someone who is a previously established editor who knows all the ropes. There can be no argument that this is an experienced editor. The rest of the edit patterns, articles, edit comments, and attitude clearly establish the identity. Look at all the 'overlapping' contacts involved. Can you say DYK Barnstar?
The fact that s/he is watching your page (or my edits) is also a bit odd, if it isn't User:Smee re-incarnate. The fact that s/he is watching Smee's page and REVERTED a post within minutes, is also a bit odd for someone who claims that I'm mistaken.
Personally, if I wanted to hide, I'd be HAPPY for someone to come along and mistake me for someone else.. misdirection is a great way to stay hidden. The fact that my suggestion received the reaction that it did, simply adds merit to the claim.
All the best. Peace.Lsijohn 02:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I do not wish to discuss this further, due to off-Wikipedia occurrences. I will not edit along articles that User:Lsi john wishes to be active in. I will not revert articles back to former versions from "Smee". Thank you, Bishonen (talk·contribs). Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen (talk·contribs), please. I am nowhere near this user's "Mind Dynamics" and the like type of articles, and yet he has followed me to Cult Awareness Network talk page to make more accusations after you told him to: Yes, please can it, John.. DIFF 1, DIFF 2. I simply wish to focus on editing and avoid this user. I do not want to bother with taking this to WP:ANI, or anywhere else. Can you do something, please? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Afraid not, but I think you can. I've e-mailed you with a few suggestions. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I will take a look. In the meantime more nonsensical harassment, DIFF 3. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen (talk·contribs), I got your email, and thank you. I hereby apologize to Lsi john (talk·contribs) for reverting to older versions of articles he had edited, from a version of: "Smee". I cannot go into details but a friend of mine off-Wiki and fellow Wikipedian did indeed receive some threats at her place of work, from someone who she said, and I trust her, had found out her identity on Wiki. This indidivdual called up her employer, and tried to have her fired by complaining about what she was doing online. Needless to say what she had told me was very frightening. This is all I will say about this. Lsi john: I hope you can understand that I am sorry about the reversions to some of the older versions of articles you had edited, under my first contribs here as Curt Wilhelm VonSavage. I will not do this again. But please, I wish you to stop this harassment you are doing. Bishonen has explained why you may feel angry, and I can understand that too, but this is not about anyone avoiding any blocks or anything like that, as you can see we are not debating this from WP:ANI or WP:ANI/3RR or anything like that - you have even made recent reversions to some pages that I had reverted when I first got here as Curt Wilhelm VonSavage - and I have ignored them. This is moreso about private concerns of mine for myself and my friend's identities off-Wiki. I hope you can understand, and you have a right to be angry about those first few reverts/contribs of mine. Yours, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Email sent. Peace.Lsijohn 00:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was at a quiz bowl tournament recently (this one). I did fairly well, finishing 15th overall (my team went 3-4). They had prizes - books - for the top 16 finishing players. So guess what I got? The Country Wife :) Raul654 18:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, enjoy! I hope they had the good taste to have it as the top prize. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry to be a jerk
I am sorry to have been such a jerk, but there are bigger issues afoot. I did leave Penwhale a clue. If it happens again, you can point to that diff. The reason I was a jerk is that you were laying down sucker tracks for other, clueless admins to follow. - JehochmanTalk 10:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Sucker tracks" are what expert skiers leave behind when they ski a nearly-impossible slope, and then some stupid newbie follows the tracks down and falls off a cliff. - JehochmanTalk 10:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear me, don't give it another thought. You're ascribing too much importance to the whole thing. As for Penwhale, who just shot himself in the other foot (ANI? What ANI? I asked on IRC !), I do believe I could manage a discussion with him without referring to your authority. Bishonen | talk 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well, I think you should give it another thought. Bishonen is being far too charitable about this, and, I for one, expected more from you. El_C 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The kid might be happier to discuss things if you hadn't walloped him with your Penguin edition of Clarissa. :-D - JehochmanTalk 19:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. El_C 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I rather think Bishonen is inferring that you attach too much importance to yourself, Jehochman. The words "your authority" have just a tiny hint of sarcasm don't you think? As always poor dear little Mrs Bishonen has failed in her never ending, and very worthy, crusade to promote wikilove. Giano 23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me? I am *completely* unimportant. Just a worm. Not even a snack for Bishzilla. - JehochmanTalk 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She would make a fine arbitrator! If someone acted up, just eat 'em. --SGTTex 20:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, a redlink... and with me being already so tempted to unclip the monster's leash and send her gallumphing towards the election page! But guess what? It can't be. You must have 1000 edits to run. I checked her edits today,[7] and was amazed to discover that she only has a total of 281 of 'em. ;-( I know those edits are pure gold... but it's going to mean her candidacy will be briskly removed by, oh, say... well, never mind, you and I can probably both think of a few users who would take delight in the opportunity. I think I won't give them the pleasure. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Alas, I suppose we'll just have to live with and love 'Zilla's special brand of wikijustice in an unofficial capacity. But perhaps this link will turn blue instead??? --SGTTex 15:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, most interesting. I hope things go well for him. I gotta say Giano's statment is much better than this one. --SGTTex 15:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say that I enjoyed both, but in the latter I'm stumped by "chillin". I think I know who to ask. -- Hoary 23:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a crock. Get this, even if I could talk 'Zilla into running for ArbCom (I tried talking some sense into those folks here), I couldn't even vote for her. Someone decided that you have to have 150 mainspace edits to be able to vote. Even though I've been around for almost 2 years, being a lurker, I don't have that many edits. Still, I think she should run. --SGTTex 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments requested
Heya - your comments on ANI about the Davkal situation motivated me to propose this. Any contribution you can make would be quite appreciated. Cheers, Skinwalker 15:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lo2u. I'm not sure about your removal of the word "holocaust" in the Great Fire of London. You have a point, certainly. I sense that the word is getting less likely to be used in the original, general sense, and more to be treated as a "name" for the Jewish holocaust. (Though then surely with a capital H?) Anyway, I just thought I'd mention that it's in my source; it's the way Hanson puts it. (So I could use a longer Hanson quote that included it, but it would mean going back to the library...) Anyway. I'm in two minds about the appropriateness of the word. Bishonen | talk 08:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, I've no strong objections. It wasn't just the WWII connection that made me think it was inappropriate. I wasn't sure it was quite the right word - not exactly wrong but (a bit like "survivors of the slaughter" or "survivors of the quagmire") in this non-literary context it jars because it's not standard vocabulary. Not sure I'm explaining that very well. Anyway, if you want to put it back I will understand - I don't want to create lots of work for something this small. --Lo2u(T • C) 17:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi to you both. I again reverted back to "holocaust." The word has a very basic definition and the usage will hopefully be understood in the context of the article. The term was used for this type of disaster long before it was appropriated for the Jewish Holocaust, and will be used again, I'm sure. The recent California fires come to mind. As for not being standard vocabulary? Well, that may say more about our current school system than anything. I will not revert again, if you two decide otherwise. Best........... WBardwin 20:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, W. I'm conflicted. I thought "holocaust" expressive and appropriate when I wrote it—a reminder of the scale and the terror of the destruction—and the Hanson book, that used the word in the context, is from this millenium (2001), so the usage is presumably current. I think it's generally a pity to remove color and force from the narrative, like the IP who keeps changing conflagration to fire in the first sentence. (What's wrong with him? The "great fire" was a "major fire"? Yeah, well, you know, it probablywas...) It's not unencyclopedic to use strong words about extraordinary events IMO, it's actually more precise that way. But I dunno about the holocaust. I guess there are further considerations there. I'll leave it to you guys. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I like both holocaust and conflagration, they are good descriptive English words, and I would vote that they stay in the article. This is particularly true as your source, Hanson, used the word holocaust. (Sigh) ----- it seems to me that the internet has led to, among other things, the "dumbing" down of English vocabulary. Words of one syllable are faster to type and even easier to "text" abbreviate, and so............ WBardwin 20:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I would say that it is impossible to use the term "holocaust" innocently. One can campaign to reverse the proper noun associations, one can insist on a general meaning, and be lexically correct, but I would say that it has a place only when one is trying to freight the description, to say, "Consuming all life, sacrificing needlessly thousands." It would be proper in a passage attempting to build heavy emotion, but it cannot be innocent of the ties with The Holocaust. The question is whether one wishes, in this place, to create such an emotional landscape, to try to create that level of vividness. If the word's associations grow so strong that they prove to be static rather than signal, that they distract rather than convey a complex denotation, then it's best to sacrifice the word. "Conflagration," on the other hand, is innocent. It's not even a "hard word" (except for the hard headed, and one hopes we never write with them in mind). Geogre 21:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Geogre is so much fun! I could do it all day! El_C 01:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I almost used the word holocaust in a page recently because it was the right and legitimate word to use but as I typed it all I could think about was concentration camps and gas chambers. My thought is that the word holocaust with or without a capital letter is in many people's minds inextricably linked to those foul events. So probably less complicated to simply avoid using it. Just my personal view. Giano 01:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Don't worry. I won't revert again :-). Just a more detailed explanation of why I removed the term:
I think Hanson's use, reproduced in the article, is rather eccentric. I don't object to "hard words" and I don't mind a bit of colour either. I dislike the word in this context because, though colourful, it's out of place. "Holocaust" is never just a synonym for "fire" or "big fire". When it does mean this, it's a simile or metaphor for "burnt offering" - it's either highly poetic or sarcastic or humorous. In this article it's been used in a matter-of-fact way as if it's interchangeable and so it looks clumsy. --Lo2u(T • C) 02:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I hope you're recovering from the flu. Could I just ask about this revert, please[8]? I agree it's not offensive. I did struggle to believe it though. Does Hanson give an actual source for his claim? At this time the poor didn't have much access to low fibre carbohydrates like white bread and they ate little sugar. Their teeth ought to have been reasonably healthy. Just for the sake of later comparison, this study[9] of dental hygiene in London is of people buried nearly a hundred years later. They aren't necessarilly poor but their diets were most likely worse. Hygiene is bad here but not in a no teeth way. If it's likely Hanson's assertion is merely an assumption, I would argue that little would lost if this were removed: "Teeth alone might have resisted such temperatures, but the poor seldom had any."
--Sorry - forgot to sign Lo2u(T • C) 05:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought it had to be a bit exaggerated, about the teeth. The sources I used are — well, they're the full-scale books that exist about the Fire — they're labors of love but not, as far as their sourcing and research strike me, actual academic works. Even the Roy Porter is sort of popular. (The exception is the amazingly painstaking and thoroughly researched Reddaway, about the rebuilding after the Fire. Absolutely fascinating.) There's a review of Hanson here, that gives a fair account of his use of primary sources. The reviewer doesn't seem to find Hanson's "novelistic" overlay as deeply irritating as I personally do... but there's also nothing misleading about that overlay, it's easily detachable. OK, as for your question, does Hanson give a source about the teeth? Truthfully...I don't remember! I can't think, I have the flu! Get rid of the suckers! It's actually not the first time they've been challenged, and the important point stands just as well without them: that the destitute people sifting through the rubble weren't archeologists with an interest in bone fragments, or teeth. They were looking for valuables. It didn't make any difference if there were teeth or not. Please change it. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Lol - I'll remove it for now but I will try to verify as well. Get well soon Bishonen.--Lo2u(T • C) 18:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ferrylodge RfAr remedy proposal
Because you're not listed as an "involved party' in the Ferrylodge arbitration case, I wanted to notify you that you are mentioned in one of the remedies included in the proposed decision. You are free to comment on the proposed decision talkpage or other usual places. (Notification by the Clerk; not commenting on the merits of the decision.) Newyorkbrad 15:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Not only mentioned but (propositionally) "instructed", I see. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Re: Proposed remedy
Response provided. Kirill 19:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting my RfA, it closed today with a final tally of 39 supports, 1 oppose and 1 neutral. As always, if you ever see me doing anything which would cause you to regret giving me your support, let me know. I do appreciate your comments, like any proper Swede, conflicts aren't something I seek out. But I'm from Norrland, we're notoriously calm, so I hope I'll weather the storms the buttons may bring. henrik•talk 18:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may be surprised! I've acquired the most improper-Swede demeanour here. You too may come to enjoy the smell of gunpowder in your Norrländska nostrils! Good luck with the buttons. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Huh. You Swedes would have an easier and more pleasant time licking out your sacrificial bowls than donning the mop in the face of vandalism and succeeding in clearing the backlogs. I expect that the trolls will not need to fear you horse eaters. Haukur 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're the tops - "I'm Mussolini, you're Mrs. Sweeney."
Sometimes [1] you realy are one. Giano 21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smoochin' pooches
"Kiss me, you dog!"
I thought this pic might fit in with your menagerie-o'-cuteness. PeterIsotalo 13:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice
Bishonen has the flu and may not respond rationally to queries.
Get well!
Get well with Glögg. --Irpen 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bish, I hope you get well soon. While ill, please consider switching your narcotic. Wikipedia is not always good even for healthy people but for the sick ones it is a no-no. So, instead, switch to Glögg. I know for a fact that it helps to get through the sick times very well. Get well soon with it! --Irpen 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Flu sucks/blows/is crap. GWS. The Rambling Man 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cough. Giano recommends lemsip and gin. Shall I try that with Glögg? Thanks, guys, and thank you for the kawaii doggy love scene, Peter. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Get better or else!--MONGO 10:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bishzilla too strong have flu. Take over while Bishonen out. --DHeyward 13:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bishzilla unfortunately very sensitive to flu. Brought special prairie-dog-size flu virus with her from mesozoic era in pocket of spiderman suit. Silly girl! Bishonen | talk 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
A prairie dog-sized influenza. It can be beaten by sneaky leukocytes.File:Giano'patentcureforflu.gifMy own cure for flu: Mix one measure of Bombay Sapphire, to one sachet of lemsip, top up with Dom Perignon and drink in bed with television, a good book and electric blanket. Remain in bed drinking this delicious cocktail for at least two weeks after whuch symptoms will miraculously subside and all sense of feeling and distress will leave the body. Giano 14:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]Some white blood cells to beat up the 3D prairie dog flu. Feel free to duplicate this image until all the flu is out the flue. Geogre 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Alice, I was just smiling at that edit summary--perhaps the single most graceful thank-you note I've ever received for unblocking and defending someone! Pity Perspicacite doesn't have e-mail enabled, or I'd write and tell him how much I appreciate it. (I'd naturally rather not add more deletion-fodder to his nice clean page.) Bishonen | talk 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I'm brand new here and you may not be familiar with my inscrutable asian ways - is there a template or emoticon one can add when you wish your comments to be taken at face value: ("And in this case, Perspicacite was being gleefully taunted on his talkpage, the only page he can edit, by Alice."). Because of my career, I like to pride myself that it is very rare that I get into conflicts with people - but I do know it is so very easy to mistake someone's "tone of voice" in cyberspace - especially as I can't wear one of my usual "real-life" "uniforms".
For example, I think I detect a note of irony when you say "perhaps the single most graceful thank-you note I've ever received for unblocking and defending someone" and I smiles - but, of course I could be wrong since we tend to do irony in a different way.
Please get well very soon - and no need to reply if you're not up to it.Alice.S 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake
Sorry about my misplaced admonishment, I have retracted my statement[10]. I misinterpreted what had happened. Thank you for correcting me. Get well. 1 != 2 20:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bishonen. I don't know if you regularly go to PR but this is a well watched User talk, so I thought I'd post here. Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers was started today in an effort to reinvigorate the process. Discussion was here. Volunteers under Arts and Language and literature most welcome. Best, Marskell 18:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DreamGuy
A bowl of homemade chicken soup. Because it is simple to prepare, relatively cheap, nutritious, and easy on the digestive system, chicken soup is a good food for winter convalescence.
Hi, Bish, I hope you get well soon. Please let me know if you think I've been unfair. El C is up in arms. (Heh, that's appropriate for a revolutionary.) DreamGuy was caught red handed sock puppeting and edit warring. I really wanted to protect the guy and see him succeed, but when he is so blantant, right underneath my nose, I can hardly ignore it. Do you think he should walk, or should he face the consequences of his actions? - JehochmanTalk 00:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wanna make me cry ? I have commented on ANI. ( :-P ) I'd have more of an opinion if I could understand a word of the thread, but it doesn't seem to be the day for it. Ask only very easy questions, please. This is the right level to aim for today. Bishonen | talk 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I think this thread is now overlong and in need of removal. Bishonen our gracious hostess is, as we all know, a very urbane creature, in fact her elegant salon is known as a place of wit and sophistication rather than a forum for vulgar political debate. With that view in mind I am removing all mention of "Bradley from New York" as if it remains it can only be a matter if time before he and his (more rustic) supporters begin to stick a bumper stickers and such like onto our charming hostesses tiara. A desecration that cannot be permitted. We all know Bishonen is very Baroque in her views for the new Arbcom and when the time comes to vote will choose the true and only path. Giano 23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KScottBailey and that Rfa
You might want to go ahead and give some sort of warning. He is now canvassing people who oppose to change their votes. See my talk page for the message he left. Jeffpw 21:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Thanks, I'll check it out. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Personal attack?
I'm honestly curious: how is citing incivility in the opposes a "personal attack", yet those same opposes get to pin that and much worse on the candidate with no similar citation? And as for disruption, it was my impression that discussion was encouraged at RfAs. That mine was counterproductive has become clear, but I hardly think it constitutes "disruption", unless I read the rules of how an RfA works wrong. If you wouldn't mind clarifying what your note at he RfA is referring to, as well as how saying some of the opposes contained incivility, I would really appreciate it. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 22:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. In the first place, you were making it so generally unpleasant to oppose Van Tucky that people would, humanly, be likely to start hesitating to draw your attention by saying what they think. Discussion is indeed supposed to be encouraged in RFAs. You were discouraging it. That's disruptive. As for your jumping in to heartily agree with Epbr123 (who has enough problems with community interaction without you cheering him when he makes personal attacks, please see my note on his page) that "some of the admins who have opposed this RfA" have major "incivility issues" themselves... that's a very interesting claim. I meant to ask you to give diffs for it, but now I see that you're not referring to any generalized civility issues these admins are supposed to have. (And I ask you what I asked Epbr123: did you know which of the opposers are admins? Did you look it up, before attacking that specific segment of Opposers?) You were simply talking about the Opposes themselves being incivil—the wording, the claims. That should simplify it. Please specify which of them contain incivility in your opinion, because I don't see it. They all seem to me well within the territory of people expressing their considered opinion of the candidate's suitability for adminship. It's admittedly rather difficult to say, as is the essence of an Oppose, that "I don't think the candidate will suit" in an amiable, pleasing, or complaisant manner. The subject matter precludes it. But it looks like people did their best to not be unnecessarily acerbic, and certainly not, in my opinion, incivil. If you can give me examples to the contrary—especially of the people who in your opinion "pin that and much worse on the candidate with no similar citation" — perhaps there might be hidden depths of coded rudeness which I would miss, as not being a native speaker? — then please do, and I will do something about it. I detest incivility. Bishonen | talk 23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks so much for the quick response, and for the clarification. Without sifting through that whole mess again, one that springs quickly to mind is the accusations of "intransigence" which brings to mind a complete willingness to compromise or admit one's mistakes. When VT tried to defend himself from this charge by posting examples of times he has, in fact, compromised and admitted mistakes, he was told by Alison that he had "missed the point" or something like that. There are others, in which VT's defenses of himself were construed as further evidence against him, but I've retired from the discussion, and really don't wish to dive back in again, even in attempting to prove that VT has been treated unfairly. K. Scott Bailey 23:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Swift reminds us that the ancient Greeks would allow a satirist to name any particular bad actor, as it was a public service to do so, but they expressly forbade generalized attacks on cities or classes of person or, worst of all, mankind itself, as that could never do any good and could only provoke rancor. The facile and amazingly pompous "better than the incivil admins" comment was just the sort of comment that cannot do any good. First, it tries to say that another person being "incivil" (the word should be "uncivil") is an excuse for a new administrator exhibiting different vices. Second, it throws "civility" around as if it were the paramount crime, when, in fact, there are times for drawing a hard line against specific individuals who are doing things that specifically harm the site, and "civility" must never, ever be understood as "politeness" or "niceness." Third, it is one of those cheap, theatrical comments that everyone can apply to someone else and no one can apply to himself, and therefore it cannot ever catch the proper targets. It was a wretched comment and betrayed a very cheap intellect or extremely derelict rhetoric. To then come along and say "hear hear" was, first, bad judgment and, second, absolutely inappropriate, as votes at an RFA are not platforms for casting aspersions, demanding defenses, or launching prosecutions or defenses. Geogre 02:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye! So well argued, that I would plaster this in an essay to refer people that make these same type of comments in RfAs. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)
First, I enjoy anyone who can bring ancient greece into a modern-day discussion. Second, I was with you, right up until you made the "RfA is not" type comments. RfAs are intended to be (or at least I was under the impression they were) places for discussion, often vigorously done. Was the "incivility" comment poorly played? In retrospect, certainly. Was it a "personal attack"? I don't agree. Should I have left my comment? Unequivocally, no. I was admidst and entwined in a discussion from which I could not untangle myself. I made a poor decision, and have since deleted the comment. I do thank you for commenting though, as your thoughts were well-written and quite entertaining, right up until the point you called RfA a "vote." Regards, K. Scott Bailey 18:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read each edit to this talk page and see no BLP issues. Can you explain why you protected this page? Rklawton 03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You'll get an e-mail explaining it. Bishonen | talk 12:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=spacer}
Silly girl! Bishonen | talk 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
