User talk:Bishonen

Please post at the foot of the page!

Talk archives

Wikimood

Wikipedia:Version 0.5

You're one of the "FAC regulars", as it is often said, and you once said that you would thought it would be a good idea to come help us review articles at WP:V0.5, so mind helping us? :) Tito xd^(?!?) 01:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember. I said that when I realized The Giver had been nominated for version 1. And I tried to go review it for 0,5, but didn't understand the process. I still don't understand it, sorry. Why does The Giver appear on this page, but not on this one? In fact, why does the first page have a category "Literature", while on the second page, literary articles instead go in the Language & Communication section (but The Giver still doesn't appear anywhere?) Man, I feel stupid today. If you can explain these mysteries very, very simply, I'll try again. More importantly, why haven't you asked Geogre, who's a more frequent, I think, and definitely a more high-powered commenter on FAC than me? (GEOGRE ARE YOU THERE NUDGE? They need ARTICLE REVIEWERS GEOGRE.) Bishonen | talk 01:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, I'm hardly ever at FAC these days, but I like to think I still have some powder in my barrel. I just don't fire it as often as I formerly did. Geogre 02:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but does powder make any difference? See me wasting some of my best here, and getting this damp squib back? Who needs logic, eh? I'm tired of the level of argument in this place. I'll just go to bed. Bishonen | talk 02:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I posted in that discussion. I know. You can defend yourself. :) But it always irks me when people read "bias" into the decisions we make. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woohookitty, I appreciate your considered input on ANI more than I can say, thank you very much. I don't think any of us are really good at defending ourselves without any support. I know I'm not--at least it certainly takes a psychological toll. I was beginning to feel as if the entire community with the one exception of El C was giving consent by silence (and sometimes indeed by cheering him on) to Timothy Usher's stalkerish anti-Bishonen campaign. Thank you. :-) Bishonen | talk 14:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, no problem. :) Well in a way, we're alike. We both seem to deal with alot of disputes. And I know that that tends to be one people are eager to point fingers. I mean I know how it is. You have no more stake in the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article or the articles that His excellency edits than I did in the History of Gibraltar article or Price-Anderson Act or any of the other articles where I've been told that I'm "biased". I was once told that I was against the entire colony of Gibraltar! I'm from Wisconsin for crying out loud. :) So I know how it is. You are just doing your job. And I don't know how you got involved in either case, but I bet it was through PAIN or AN/I or whatever. Basically stumbled into it. Shows that you are a good admin. Not biased. --Woohookitty^(meow) 20:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. See TU posting actual lies on ANI now? I apparently undid His Excellency's second indefinite block, too. (As you probably remember, I didn't, you did.) I really don't know why I let someone like that get to me. I told Peterklutz quite truthfully that I enjoy his sallies, but I'm finding it hard to enjoy TU. Bishonen | talk 00:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, you miss nice simple folk like Beckjord, don't you? I responded to TU there already, sigh; in better news, I think, Merzbow has opened an RfArb. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. "It's time for a lynching!" I figured that getting between the mob and its victim wasn't going to be profitable. It's the same bullcrap as before, only with more bulls. I feel like a Jewish ACLU lawyer defending the Nazi marchers in Skogie, Illinois, but the impulse to screw process and block forever is getting out of control. And then this is coupled with my darkest prophecies about the "no personal attacks" nonsense. "It's policy, block 'em forever!!!!!" You can't expect sound argument from people who can't read. Geogre 04:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

What are your thoughts on full protecting the page? Peter has returned and we're right back to a revert war. I thought I'd ask you since you know more about the situation than I do. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked Peter for 24 hours for 3RR vio. Apparently, he knows the rule and yet violated it anyway. *sigh* Posted the 5th revert after my warning. If you feel like it should be extended, go ahead. But. It's his first 3RR vio, so I decided to go easier on him. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Woohoo. I won't extend the 3RR block, I have a whole different kind of block in mind, as soon as I have a moment. This has to be one of the least educable users I've come across where our policies are concerned; he's been warned again and again, blocked with progressively lengthening blocks, linked untold times to the relevant policies, and still most of his edits blithely violate all of the five pillars. It's time for something more drastic, and now that you've put him temporarily out of action, I've got time to consider. Thank you, and please leave it to me, as I want to write him a full explanation of what I have in mind. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

No problem. :) Yeah when they intentionally violate 3RR, something is amiss. --Woohookitty^(meow) 20:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case against me

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#His_excellency_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 I'm not really sure how these things work. Past blocks are being used as evidence against me, and since you've seen alot of them and reviewed them, your input might be useful. I would really appreciate your participation, although I would also understand, in light of what's gone on since, if you chose not to participate. His Excellency... 01:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. ArbCom cases are two-tiered: the statements at this stage are merely about whether the ArbCom will accept the case--whether they actually will arbitrate it or not. If you take a look at for instance the Eternal Equinox case, that I've been involved in, you'll see how it works. The initial statements have been refactored to here, and when the case was accepted and "opened", this evidence page was created and the action moved to it. I don't see much percentaqe in me adding a statement to Merzbow's request at WP:RFAR, unless something turns up from somebody else that I think I can really usefully comment on; I'll save it--what there is of it--not a lot--for the upcoming evidence page. Assuming that the case is accepted, the evidence page will be the meat of it, it'll be what the arbs base their decisions on. You might want to save your own best ammo for that not-yet-created page, too. Bishonen | talk 02:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Btw, we also have this, where he clearly doesn't want your help. I protected his talk page. I know. You don't care for that always. But I figure that doing it for a few hours won't hurt. Apparently he's really angry and hepped up at the moment. I don't think a little time to cool off will hurt anything. I'll unprotect it in 6-7 hours, if that. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi, bishonen. I noticed your mood was down, so I figured I'd just say hi and wish you well with overcoming whatever problems you have encountered. Please tell me if there's anything I can do to help. Deco 06:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bishonen

I see your wikimood is down! Whats wrong? If you need help with anything, let me know! Take it easy!--Steve-o 06:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. It's nothing, just a harassment campaign over my proper and valid admin actions. You see it below. Bishonen | talk 11:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

All you can do is continue to act according to the rules. Sometimes people think you're trying to help a user or trying to hurt a user, when what you're doing is trying to help Wikipedia follow its rules. I endorsed a 24 hr block on some dude to try to prevent the usual "block forever!" cries, and his response was to send me a nastygram. I figured, "Meh." I wasn't trying to help him. 24 hr was the proper block. ~~So, if HE is cursing you for "helping him," meh.~~ If Usher can't tell the difference between asking people to obey the actual rules of the place and "taking sides," meh. Can't do anything about either one of those people. At least that's my view. (And I'm getting told off by conservative Roman Catholics and Satanists right now.) Geogre 12:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks. You've got it wrong about HE cursing me, I don't know where that comes from. It's the kind of thing people like to repeat, so please don't spread it further. Click on Woohookitty's link above. Bishonen | talk 12:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It was in hypotheticals, but I'll strike through. I did read, and he was very nice there. Of course the lost his sh*t entirely at the RFAR. So it goes, I guess. Geogre 13:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People like to repeat such things stripped of niceties like hypotheticals. They like to write about his "admitted sock", as if he tried to conceal his name change but was then forced to admit it. I don't know if that's just linguistic clumsiness or deliberate misdirection (I know what I think, but I don't know). I won't ask you to look at ANI. Bishonen | talk 13:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I was just there, but I didn't go up far enough to see this mess. I am staying a little aloof from this particular one, given the last round, but I'm sticking my big flat nose into other things. (I wonder if I can get the conservative Catholics to argue with the Satanists and leave me alone altogether?) Geogre 13:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed

(Message by Timothy Usher removed by Mark 11:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC) per request above of Bishonen not to be contacted on this talk page by this user any more)[reply]

Timothy Usher, have you forgotten that you don't get to post on this page? I regret my charity in overlooking it once, like a soft fool, when you wanted to defend yourself against the heinous charge of having made an error of grammar. I felt that not getting to rebut that would mortify you severely. Please don't encroach on my tolerance on that occasion. Don't post on this page. You should be aware that once a request for arbitration is opened, the ArbCom will take an interest in the conduct of all the parties involved. Bishonen | talk 11:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I don't get it. Why is this person not understanding the difference between thinking that an administrative action is unjustified and thinking that a person is justified? Pretty moroon, if you ax me. Crowbait 13:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep

Saw your email and responded to it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got it. Bishonen | talk 14:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Choking on coffee

Indeed, I posted the note towards helping others avoid the need to track such information down. I understand why User:His excellency has been unblocked... and his concerns should be heard and addressed as necessary. It appears that he has decided to go on Wikibreak... so not sure where that's going to go. I must tell you that your concerns re: User:Timothy Usher are very valid and it is a bit disconcerting to see his personalization of your actions as well as his false accusations. Such demonstrations may need to be curtailed in a somewhat more agressive fashion. (→Netscott) 18:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail. (→Netscott) 19:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen:

Hi, I am hahahihihoho. And I will put a source in the Bosnia and Herzegovina article where it says that 250 000 died. I will not delete the part where it says that 100 000 died. Is it a deal?

Hi again!

I have changed now and you can change so that it will be like the number 5 in my evidence cause I dont know how to do. Anyway, I found evidence that 250 000 died and I have tousand more evidence if you want.

Hahahihihoho

Hi,

I am having problems with user:Hahahihihoho for about 2 weeks i.e. since his first post. As I see it, he is not standard vandal, he is more like unable to get the point, due to some kind of mental disorder or being under 10 years old. Whatever, arguments doesn't work with him, so I tried to explain him by example, at first in english, and later in croatian (Bosnian, whatever...).

Text in croatian basicaly says the same as text in english, but I replaced "Deutsche Presse-Agentur, November. 21, 2005" with "Mate Matic" (the same as John Doe), to make it easier to him, but he replied that he dont want to listen to my fu**ing Mate Mitic. This is no reply of sane preson.

Anyway, to make a long story short - this guy is an idiot (this was a diagnose, not an insult). I don't know what is wikipedia policy for plain idiots. --Ante Perkovic

P.S.

Just like I said, he is an idiot. After 2 weeks, he still didn't learn to sign his posts and now he attacked me for something I didn't do (explained here), that proves that he still doesn't understand what "history" link serves for. I'm sorry that at least 5 people lost their wiki-time on this idiot. I think we should try to find some way to minimise the loss of time. Should we go for WP:RFC/USER? --Ante Perkovic 18:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(It's funny how my threat helped him get the point...) I saw you posting on WP:ANI about this some time ago, didn't I? That was why I blocked H. for 12 hours a while back. Anyway, there's obviously a language problem, and also unfamiliarity with how the site works. (Yes, I saw he thinks you reverted him, I've written about that on his page.)

(Edit conflict) Oh, hey, I see you writing *very* impatiently to him above, and on your page ... please don't call names! And please consider that this time he actually did collaborate! Bishonen | talk 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Ante: Why do you hate?

I thought that Jesus say that you must love your enemy?

Btw, the ONLY thing I changed in the BiH article is the evidence that 250 000 people died. I DID NOT delete YOUR PART were it said that 100 000 people died. I just layed evidence that 250 000 people died.

So, my question is:

Why did you delete that part? // Hahahihihoho

Bishone: Is that allowed to say that somebody is mentaly insane in Wikipedia? Cause Ante call me that and i HAVE NEVER said something like that before. // Hahahihihoho

Hahah, I've replied on your page about your source and the figures 100,000 and 250,000. No, it's not allowed! Ante shouldn't have said those things. But you must consider that he has been *very* patient with you before, and it hasn't done any good--it wasn't until I talked about blocking you that you listened. Please consider how frustrating that must have been for Ante, and forgive him. And it must also be stressful for him that you keep saying that he reverted you, which he didn't do. Bishonen | talk 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen:

I will never forgive him.

Or, does it say in the rules of Wikipedia that you MUST forgive?

No. But it says in all the religions that you should forgive if you want to be forgiven for the bad stuff you did. Think about it. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen:

I will write again the source of 250 000 cause it is up to the people to decide which source is more availaible and I will write the source again. I am not breaking any rules when I write down source cause I will do it again after 12 hours.

// Hahahihihoho

It's up to the editors, yes. (One of them already reverted you.) But it's not about which source is more available, it's about which is more reliable, c'mon. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Seriously dude... I didnt mean available cause I wrote wrong. It was meant as reliable. And I will write down the source cause there are 2 sides and the people must now so that they can see the 2 sources and decide for themselves which is more reliable.

Because of that I will write down the source so that people dont think that 100 000 people died when there are obvious evidence that 250 000 died during the Serbian aggression on Bosnia.

Yes, you are breaking rules even if you don't revert more than 3 times a day. Please read and understand this part of the WP:3RR. I have already explained to you that one of the sources is better. People are supposed to be able to read Wikipedia and know that we have only good sources, they're not supposed to have to decide that for themselves. Children read this encyclopedia too, and we need to give them only well-sourced information, not a phony choice which they don't know how to make. It was good that you looked out a source, but it can't be kept because the source for 100,000 dead is much better. Don't put your source back. And please click on WP:SIG, like Ante has told you, and learn how to sign edits on talkpages properly, the way I do, so that the signature contains a link and a timestamp. C'mon, please. It's not hard. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I will learn that soon, i Promise!!!

But I know that 250 000 died in the war, its because of that I cant accept that it is written that 100 000 died when it was 250 000!!

And I will put my source back, otherwise I will delete the source were it says that 100 000 died. And I will find a better source if you want, I promise!!!

But One thing is for sure:

IT WONT BE WRITTEN THAT 100 000 DIED CAUSE I WILL FIND SOURCE AND I WILL ALLWAYS WRITE THAT 250 000 DIED. Why? Because that is the truth!!!

Okej, here is more evidence:

http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862002000100015&script=sci_arttext

Is this enough evidence for you or not?

That's a lot better, congratulations! A document from the World Health Organization is a good source all right. Would you like me to input the 250,000 figure and the source for you, to make a footnote and also to explain that 100,000 is according to the news agency and 250,000 according to WHO? (and that 250,000 includes missing as well as dead people). I know you wanted help with the footnote, and also, the last time you didn't make it very clear about the two figures. If you write it I worry that you could be reverted again just because it's not clear, or because people assume that you're doing what you did before. I would put in the edit summary that I'm writing it for you, so you'd still get the credit. :-) Deal? (But don't expect it soon. I'd do it today or tomorrow, but I'm busy right now.) Bishonen | talk 21:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Okey. But put my source in the article.

ANI

OK, I'll change what I said. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Example. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Example/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 26, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Example/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, ~~~~ --Tony Sidaway 08:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Friend is a character in a Joyce Carol Oates story

I think I've figured out a use. I can edit from work this way, and then edit from home differently. Nah. Well, it was an idea. I think I'm going to work on something minor and liturgical. So far, I haven't made any good edits (or bad ones, either), thanks to the AOL morass. Crowbait 14:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So he decided to do FAC instead. Sheesh. Someone is trying to avoid his work, I'd say. Geogre 14:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have aDSL now, although I haven't had the mental calm and spiritual strength for installing it, yet. Tonight, perhaps. Then I can go around shouting, "Block teh AOLamers!" Geogre 20:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The temptation to talk to him is overwhelming. Someone needs to talk to him. My FAC votes were perfectly cromulent, and, unlike Geogre, I'm not on AOL! Crowbait 21:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I clickéd on a very high definition image, and it... get this... it popped right up! That's right! It just appeared! No waiting! Geogre 23:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, and I can leave IRC going all the time, and I can use Skype. SOW, want to give that another try? Geogre 00:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A heading for hahahihihoho

Bishonen: Its Hahahihihoho, I have written a thing in the Bosnian article and I find it very clear that it should be like that. Btw, I have answered you on my talk page... You can answer there if you want...

[Please learn to sign posts and make headings for them before I become as impatient with you as Ante.] I've reverted your edit to Bosnian War because encyclopedias aren't supposed to be written like that. Read this policy about it: WP:NPOV. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Look at my talk page cause I have anwered.

And stop defending the genocid made by serbs. Have you ever read about Srebrenica massacre?

Oi vey

Oi. I posted on Merzbow's talk page. I have a feeling he doesn't quite understand the evidence page and how it's not really for asking someone why they did something. --Woohookitty^(meow) 23:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out where to insert the spoon to prise apart the bricks enough to make a statement, since my statement would be about the crazy talk TU has been fond of. Even there, he goes back to "Why this, when not this other case?" and is unable to address just the one thing, just the one case. If you did nothing wrong, then...then what's all that about? It's inexplicable. Geogre 23:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict: hiya, Geogre, did you see it's not about TU, though?)[Shrug] Thanks, Mike. I'm sure the ArbCom doesn't expect everybody to be an expert in the intricacies of RFAr:s, they won't mind, or think the less of him. Though they may have more of a problem with what looks from here like a pretty grievous violation of the exhortations to pith and brevity on the evidence page. How about advising Merzbow to move some of the text to the talkpage you just created?

Oh no, vey ist mir, I just saw you advised him to come here and ask me... Well, then I might as well declare that no matter where that question is asked, I'm not going to be drawn into any argument about it. You already answered it on the RFAr talkpage, on about the right scale, anyway. (I appreciate it.) And I'm busy. This thing is taking too much time as it is. In short, the RFAr talkpage is better, because then other people may chime in and clarify stuff. I'm going to first write some evidence--it's such a slow business--and then I have some plans for an article, here. For the encyclopedia, if anybody remembers such a thing? Anyway, thanks, Mike, you've been a big help. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oi vey 2

Why do you do what you do?