User talk:Bishonen


Warning	This user is currently experiencing health issues that may affect her ability to work on Wikipedia.

Bookmarks

articles cw far
ice fire emigration
diffs for dummies
diff and link guide
rfc dreamguy
rfar dreamguy
rfar cofs rfar troubles
moods bishzilla
warning templates
removing warnings

Talk archives

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

**El C's chipmunk of the day is enjoying well-earned reward.**

**MONGO's birds of the day are pelicans in Nebraska.**

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

CSD AutoReason Updated

Attention spamlist! I've just updated CSD AutoReason to account for the new image deletion page. If you'd just hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 in most browsers), you'll get the new version and be on your way. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Things that are not surprising

I just created another humor page; this time, for things that shouldn't be that surprsing, such as the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, or the fact that vandals get blocked. I'm looking for more entries, which is why I mention it to you. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LTNS

Actually anyone 'can' edit.. only arbitrators are 'supposed' to edit.. and as you see, I realized that and moved my comments :P MEH !

ltns.. and after reading a bit, i can see that I havent missed anything here at all.. what a bunch of nonsense.

Hugs. Peace.Lsi john 23:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:OFFICIOUS

Presumably the editors who spend their time coding these things on their user pages also could spend that time more productively editing? In the end, in a volunteer organization, we go nowhere by trying to tell people how to spend their time as long as they don't disrupt things. Personally, I don't remove various inappropriate content from user pages, but I will call it inappropriate when it is. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see the various people giving their opinion in the matter and then moving on? Why you feel it important to keep repeating yours all over the place is a mystery to me. Bishonen | talk 07:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Just to say thanks for what seems to be a splendid guideline, which when I think of it complements WP:DICK rather well. Anyway, enough trivia. Turns thoughts back to todo list. .. dave souza, talk 08:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks! I'm rather surprised that hasn't been speedied or MfD'd yet. I really created it in order to have a pompous-looking bluelink in this post — I wasn't expecting anybody to actually click on it. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you

Hi, Bishonen. Nice to see you appear again in the TM article after many months -- good to know that you're keeping an eye on things (sort of a deus ex machina). Thanks so much for encouraging participants to avoid edit warring. I hope we can resolve this through discussion. TimidGuy 11:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, TG, long time! The edit summary popped up on my watchlist... yeah, I'm always curious about edits with that kind of summary. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Emigration

Hi Bishonen: and here I thought you'd written a companion article! If you should have any other projects you want a third party to skim, let me know. –Outriggr ♠ 23:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have decided to FAC your page about people leaving Sweden [1]. I just hope it was the right thing to do - I mean, do you have the requisite number of footnotes? - and more importantly....how can I put this?...really I don't mean to to be unkind - but er.... is your English up to it? - you do have an unfortunate habit of splitting your infinitives, not that it matters to me, but Raul is a very busy person indeed (though not as busy as some) and may not have the time to correct lazy grammar etc. Are you sure it has met criteria "2b" or whatever it is called, not that I have ever read the criteria, but then I never split an infinitive or have the time to seriously read these dull criteria instructions. Giano 22:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The split infinitive criterion is a bugger, yeah. You have to accept we can't all have your facility, nor your baronesses. Bishonen | talk 23:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Of course my own English is near perfect, in fact many people often remark on the standard of my English, my infinitives are a wonder to behold, if you would like me to lightly coypedit it, you only have to gently hint. Although of course I am a very busy person <sigh> I could, if I can find the time, try to quickly squeeze you in. Have you thought about an English night class? Giano 06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating article! BTW, the only thing I would change is making images larger. There is enough text to accommodate larger images and make the necessary detail seen form within the article without having to click on images. But that's just my thought. I will send Irpen-bot handle this FAC as per 'Zilla's RfAdm precedent. :) --Irpen 07:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna see what's in my bag?

I won't be messing with the emigration bag anymore. All done. It can be sewn shut with iron wire now. I find that that's a good way to keep out pests, like Thor. Utgard Loki 15:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a ham sandwich, and it's past its prime! Don't look! Geogre 18:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pickled herring. The smell is the best part! Utgard Loki 13:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That's what the mortals always say: "The gods only eat the smoke of the barbecue, because that's the best part, and we're stuck eating the lousy meat." I'm not buying it. Food shouldn't cause stomach spasms. Geogre 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speak

there's also another chip one pillar to the left of em, on top of bridge, sitting (happy!); oh, and on closer look, yet another one looking at him, sitting by bush below (also happy!)

Long time no! El_C 07:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where speech? Bishonen | talk 07:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Firebrand speech is coming. El_C 07:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er... timid firebrand..? Bishonen | talk 07:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A contradiction in terms, but yes! El_C 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre question

Hello. I'm leaving this on your talk and the article page, as I'm not sure where's best. The play definitely refers to conventions of Restoration comedy, but it's significance lies in being the first of the new genre of sentimental comedy. It is described as such in The Cambridge Guide to Theatre. Unless there's a better, more specific citation than that, I think that ought to define its genre. I've read this together with The Relapse, though I confess it was a while ago, and placing the two together makes the distinction clear. DionysosProteus 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks for communicating. Well, I know of more specialized discussions than the Cambridge Guide, it's sort of my field. (I wrote the articles on The Relapse and Love's Last Shift.) I don't agree about the "sentimental comedy," but I don't exactly feel strongly about it, either. I'll see if I can find the time and, uh, momentum to fix up some nice citation for my opinion. In the meantime, please feel free to revert my revert right back, if you like. We should probably post any further discussion on the article talk, where other people can find it. Regards, Bishonen | talk 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Me! Me! I have sentiments, and I am a comedy. (The Relapse... you know, dear, it's kinda sorta somewhat sorta kinda sentiment-ish, if you tilt your head and squint, but it's not in any way Sentimental Comedy. If I were doing Sentimental Comedy (and heaven and administration forefend I ever do), I wouldn't even put the two together, because the sentimentalism in it is probably relevant more to the later-emerging sententious sentiment in Steele and Lillo ("Lillo and Snitch," as I call them).) Geogre 00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For several years worth of service to Wikipedia, I, Sharkface217, hereby present you with this barnstar. --Shark face 217 04:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long overdue. --Shark face 217 04:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kewl! Thank you ! [Places it in secret Award Gallery with a crazed cackle of gratification. ] My preciousssssss ! Bishonen | talk 10:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Toilet paper holder

Dear Sir/Madam/or both, while propagating wikilinks for my newly created cigarette case I could not help but notice the existence of seemingly duplicating articles, User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder and User:Babajobu/European toilet paper holder. Is there any particular reson for this redundancy? In this connection I also could not help but nothice that in User:Bishonen/Toilet paper holder the section "Antarctic toilet paper holder" pitifully lacks the subtle elegancy and verifiability of the remaining text, so I even at first did not believe you added the piece yourselves. Also I refret to notice that you are unfortunately mistaken: in Antarctica they wipe themselves with snow. This is a little known and unusual, however plain, fact, but it is rather believable, if you recall the reason why Arabs consider the left hand unclean (if you wave with left hand to bin Laden (PBUH), he will shoot you in place and Iran you will be fined and your left hand stoned (rajm-i-sqierd)). If you didn't know the latter fact and don't believe me (wikipedia article missing), check out google. Therefore if you don't object, may I humbly ask you to allow me to rewrite this rather stubby section. (Suggested summary: in Antarctica the whole Antarctica is one huge toilet paper holder (or its homolog), making it the hugest TPH in the whole wide world.) -User:Laudak

Well, User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder, and so on, are userpages, not articles. The names starting with the name of a user means that they're in "userspace", not "mainspace". All sorts of things go on in the userspace... people are free to copy the piece, composed mainly by User:Giano and myself, ad libitum, and keep it in their own space, and I think more than Babajobu have done so. User:Bishonen/Toilet paper holder was an impulsive attempt to organize tph's across the globe, which I immediately got bored with. Still in existence, is it? Fancy that. Do feel free to improve it according to your own creative notions.

Cigarette case is very nice, though I miss a seriouos historical section. What about the design of cigarette cases in ancient Egypt? And did the Aztec make theirs of gold? Or silver? Bishonen | talk 08:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"historical section" - yes, I am aware of that. Since I am not an expert and wrote it using google for wisdom. Since there are close to million of google hits, 95% being merchandize ads, it was quite painful job to pick the gems out of dirt. I will try to continue this later. It is amazing how simple things may have rich content to write about. Laudak 18:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I susupect that "Cigarette case" is a good candidate for WP:DYK, but I cannot think of a good DYK catch phrase. If you agree with this, can you help with a nomination? (Funny, I looked into its linkage and see that AlexNewArtBox thinks that this article is related to Cold War :-) `'Míkka 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Empires

Would anyone like to comment on this? --Joopercoopers 11:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hoary...

...has just offered me a beer so I believe the fuck off has been forgiven. (At the moment I posted it, I felt within my rights.)

If you've read that then you have seen some of the back story. Radiant and PMA (for reasons I still don't fathom) are against Wikipedia joining the rest of the English publishing world and advising against masculine usage where gender is indeterminate. Yes, the singular they rankles some people, but if it's good enough for Cambridge, it should be good enough for Wikipedia. Despite your animus against Tony (and apparently me), surely you see the wisdom in this proposed (and incredibly mild) guideline. Marskell 16:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animus against Tony? Was I supposed to be taking a shot at Tony? He's always pleasant and polite to me, so that would be black ingratitude indeed. You don't think Tony's alone, or extreme, in opposing FACs over dots and dashes, do you? I sure don't. It's a sad state of affairs if I can't give info on ANI for any other reason than animus. Radiant kept pointing out that editing a guideline isn't a big deal, and I couldn't understand why no FACer would tell him that changes to the MOS are a big deal wrt FAC, because of the featured article criteria and the "MOS breaches" Wasn't it true, what I said? Was it a secret? Was the discussion better for Radiant not knowing it? I did object to your attack on Hoary, yes. It seemed quite unprovoked to me, as I didn't see any "venom" in his post. I only saw energetic annoyance at attempts to police perfectly good and established usage (singular they ) into submission. Apparently you agree about the matter of fact. I don't know which guideline you mean, whether about gender, singular they, or something else. I read the singular they stuff on Tony's subpage—don't remember how it caught my eye—not the gender stuff. You'll have to be more explicit about the incredibly mild guideline if you want a response about it. Bishonen | talk 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nonsense. Cambridge is folly in this regard, and they will correct themselves before long and look as silly in the process as the publishers of "Jive Bibles." An indeterminate "he" is acceptable. An alternation of pronouns or the use of "he or she" is preferrable. More variation and more potential is better than less. Utgard Loki 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last, first: Bishonen calls 'singualar they' "good and established usage" (I agree that's it's generally good, if not totally established; Hoary and I seem to agree as well—I think we failed to realize that we agree, which was part of the problem). Utgard, meanwhile, is calling it nonsense. Cambridge is not in folly and I very much doubt that Cambridge is going to reverse direction. Of course, he is still acceptable with indeterminate gender (the proposed guideline does not say otherwise). But if, in 2007, you're so lazy that you cannot come up with non-sexist phrasing (yes, it is sexist, once you have the cognitive tools to understand what sexism means) then I'll call your position idiotic. The opposition to the guideline (not necessarily to the phrasing, but to the general intent) has been idiotic indeed. (The guideline I'm referring to is the potential guideline in Tony's user space, whose talk page we're discussing.)

"[Do I think] Tony's alone, or extreme, in opposing FACs over dots and dashes?" He most certainly is extreme insofar as he does that. But he doesn't, in my experience, oppose over dots and dashes—he opposes over the general quality of the prose and orthography, of which dots and dashes are one part. I mean, I have literally never seen Tony write something like "Oppose: incorrect dash use" by itself. Perhaps he has. Most often I have seen "Oppose: this is not professional prose." Tony is the most exacting editor I have encountered wrt prose, and I think he knows he's at one extreme but feels it worthy to defend that fort. He's seen me keep a FAR over his prose objections, almost certainly; and he also knows I consider his comments closely. Articles are certainly never defeatured based on dashes alone. That would be truly silly.

Which leads to last: there is no FAR/FAC cabal. There really isn't. If your post to AN/I, Bishonen, was not prompted by real animus toward Tony (or me), then I retract the suggestion. But it's become extremely tiresome to read these posts tacitly suggesting that there is a group of people cackling over em-dashes. Marskell 21:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Marksell: Cambridge already looks silly and won't have to wait. Using a singular they is not good, but it is an old error. Old errors are still errors, and arguing from practice to rule is utterly stupid, because, in fact, using a plural noun with a singular verb, or vice versa, is quite common as well, and yet we elitist snobs still call it an error. From the evening news to TV commercials, you will hear such things as, "There's millions of reasons for calling this a mistake." "Oh, but proscriptive grammarians are all just trying to rap our knuckles," people say. No: number is non-negotiable in English. This is not telling children to stop saying "ain't." This is telling you, and anyone else who cares, that it is an outright error to write "they" and intend a singular. It is not acceptable, not good. It is an affront to logic and sentiment, and the fact that people do it has nothing to say in its favor. People get drunk and vomit on their friends, too, but it's still an error. Using "he" as an indefinite singular is acceptable. Using it does not indict the understanding or politics of the author, either, and, frankly, how dare you or anyone else say that a stranger must be a sexist for not adopting your desired solution to the problem of English's lack of an indefinite personal pronoun? It's rude, and it's stupid, to do so. My first thought is that someone who does that is trying to be old fashioned and has a fondness for what HE perceives as being "proper" (fussy) English. I would not conclude that such a person is a sexist, for I do not know HIM (and "he" turns out to be "she" as often as not).

To embrace "they" as a solution is to embrace the least logical, least elegant, and least communicative of the many solutions to the problem.

As for CUP, it already has a silly reputation for being faddish. This certainly doesn't help them gain the gravitas they long ago forfeited. Geogre 01:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I just noticed your good-hearted post to Tony's talk, Bishonen. I had read the AN/I post as an unfair jab at him but I see that you didn't intend it as such. You appreciate the work he does—so do I. We can agree on that! Marskell 22:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would we do without the three of you: Bishonen, Hoary and Marskell? Among my most respected WPians, truly. Let me say that Radiant and PM are, as far as I can see, mounting a gradual attack on the status of MOS. They've successfully weakened it a little via the style-guide, only the other day. PM's strategy of unilateral and sudden changes to the text, without consensus (now vehemently supported by Radiant on that count) has gathered pace. Now they and their associates are widening this front to include age-old complaints about the upholding of standards at FAC (and FAR/C by implication). I've analysed some of Radiant's polemic at GNL, which s/he has taken great offence to. And now there's a continuing campaign against me at these administrative sites I've never before set foot in. Oh well, the dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on. PS I never oppose FACs for dots and dashes, but I do expect them to be fixed up. Tony 00:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre, Hoary, and Loki, I've moved your following posts to Geogre's page. I really don't know what they, or some of the above either, were doing here. Please take a hint, now. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Paintings of people crossing things

Hi, I stumbled upon your category Category:Paintings of people crossing geographical features, and out of false patriotism I made it for the world to see that Suvorov crossed more things than Napoleon :-) What worries me that I am aware of quite a few deletionists which may try to delete this category under some pretext or other. I see this happening all the time, the notable example being the category:Lists of songs, which was literally devastated after I split it into reasonable and quite large subcategories similar to yours. Can you think of some solid rock argument to oppose them? `'Míkka 19:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow... and you actually created that dab page for it? I'm touched! Here was I all set to apologize for my silliness and speedy the category myself... but it's too nicely populated to delete, now. OK, that's my rock solid argument: "Keep, too nice to delete." There's a wide-ranging discussion of it here, btw. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Personally, I think lists are a better way to treat something like that, but then some people don't like the lists either... I would be able to come up with a better argument to keep a list as opposed to a category. I'm starting a few painting lists at User:Carcharoth/Paintings depicting battle, death and war. Please feel free to contribute. Carcharoth 19:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mrs Bishonen,

I am a great admirer of yours. One could not help noticing your valiant attempts to educate the lower orders - of course you are wasting your time as the lower orders are not what they once were - grateful and thankful for their lot. You may be interested in researching one of the world's, greatest lost paintings Landseer's famous depiction of my great uncle Hubert Noteworthy-Smallcock Bart. crossing the equator - for it was who discovered the southern hemisphere. Were it not for he Wikipedia would have been denied all its Antipodean editors - and for information on those parts would be reliant on pygmies or whatever it the natives of those parts are called. The painting depicts Sir Hubert "in glory" surrounded by Brittania and an assortment of shot indigenous fauna - Sir Hubert was a great hunter! Without false modesty I can say he was one of Britain's most homicidal baronets.

Thus, I am surprised indeed that no Wikipedian has thought to write a page on my illustrious ancestor Sir Hubert Notworthy-Smallcock Bart. However, to pose, a more important, question - where is Landseer's Smallcock? It has not been sighted since 1941 where it was displayed prominently in the drawing room of my great aunt (Lady Noteworthy-Smallcock) in Berkeley Square - refusing to acknowledge Hitler's existence she defied the Blitz preferring to sit as she had always chosen to do sipping Château Margaux and Dom Perignon combined (a family recipe, wittily referred to as a Smallcock-tail) until a doodlebug ceased to doodle over Berkeley Square. Since that date my beloved aunt and the painting have not been espied again. A reward is now offered and if it appears on Wikipedia as a result of your appeal - that Jimbo Wales will be sued. yes Mr Wales that is a legal threat!!!! I want my Smallcock returned to me so that I may enjoy it in the privacy of my own home.

Sincerely yours

Catherine de Bourgh (Lady) 20:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, in Hebrew, pet and petting are entirely different words; the latter, לטף, has to do with the gentleness of caressing, whereas the former, either חיית מחמד or חיית שעשועים, is translated as "cuteness" and "amusement animal," respectively. Respectfully yours, El_C 09:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! You mean that "pet" means kawaii ? Bishonen | talk 09:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's right, I am not making this up! El_C 09:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Do you think you could review this block and commentary by User:William M. Connolley. He has abused his administrative privileges by selectively blocking one person in a dispute to which he is an involved party. I would bring this up with an AN/I, but I want to give one shot at good faith, and ask someone uninvolved to review it. If I'm nuts, then so be it. But if WMC wanted to block anyone, I could provide a list (myself included) in this particular articles arguments. It appears that WMC was asked by one of the least civil individuals in the argument to review CO's commentary. Nothing about it seems fair. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for you to review this if you feel inclined. For myself, I believe I am not involved - see my talk page for more on that side of things. I invited OM to tell me of equivalent PA's by other editors and he has chosen not to do so. OM should probably have pointed out what you'll find very readily: that he is heavily involvedon CO's side William M. Connolley 16:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need never be troubled again

I shall be sure never to post to your page again, after this. Utgard Loki 16:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest FAC

Congratulations my dear on a charming little page very prettily written, one would hardly know the struggle you have with English grammar - I expect that nice handsome Italian boy helped you out what a talent he has! I've always found the Swedes a very cold race, I remember cruising in our yacht around the fjords seeing them queuing to emigrate a touching sight - allthough why they wanted to go to America is beyond me - England is so much nicer. As I said well done. Catherine de Bourgh (Lady) 17:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How kind, dear Lady Catherine. (And how kind, MONGO, thanks for the star!) Do I know a nice handsome Italian boy..? Perhaps you will introduce us? Anyway, are you sure those were Swedes queuing to emigrate? Lemmings, perhaps? I could have sworn all the Swedes had already left on the Stockholm-Lübeck-Hamburg route to Southampton, there to board the Titanic for New York, America. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Don't speak to me of the Titanic - so many dear friends lost - of course I had my own life-boat, but I am still humbled when I think of the calm acceptance of those simple Swedes trying to climb aboard as my faithful maid Gunhilda hit them with her parasol explaining to them the value of my wardrobe stowed safely on board. However be assured I wrote a very stiff letter of complaint to the White Star Company on my return on their behalf - realising the gravity on the situation they sent me a free ticket for life which I feel must have been some compensation to the bereaved. Such are the trials and sugfferings of the highborn. Catherine de Bourgh (Lady) 19:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April fools article

Lick me in the ass <-- I swear to God this would be the PERFECT April Fools article. Raul654 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. Lady Catherine, you who represent decency on Wikipedia, you must surely agree on this culture article! Bishonen | talk 21:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bad?... BAD? It is horrendous to think I have referred to Raul as a nice Italian boy, clean living and wholesome, I take it all back he is nothing of the kind - I am shocked to my core, I intend to complain to that nice Mr Wales - who is pressing me to join his charitable arbitration committee. Catherine de Bourgh (Lady) 22:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't help it - I was born a pervert, and I'll die one :P Raul654 22:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh perverts I know all about them, my fourth husband was one of those - You young man are odious - quite odious, in a more enlightened day and age you would be horsewhipped - but I suppose you would quite enjoy that! Just wait until Mr Wales has put me in charge of recruitment your days will be numbered. Catherine de Bourgh (Lady) 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi Bishonen. I'm sorry if I upset you yesterday... as, indeed, I think I did. There was certainly no intention to do so. Without going into justifications and self-righteous posturing, I was somewhat bewildered by some of your comments and we all know how easy it is for silly conflicts to blow up here. Returning to first principles... I know you're "one of the good guys" round here, and I hate to think I irritated you. The issue's a non-issue and this is a sincere apology for any grief I caused. Cheers. --Dweller 09:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're cool, Dweller. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Radiant

I regret that Radiant has misplaced his (or is her?) temper; but you should bear in mind how irritating Tony can be. This edit alone would be enough to try a reasonable editor, and there are many more like it; and his edit summaries are a whole separate field of obnoxiousness. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG you're not still harping on that "ploy" edit? Yes, I know Tony simmers up, but he also simmers down, as you suggested here. Btw I'm very sorry your fine article on Orion had such a parody of a FAC process. The behavior of that editor—you know the one I mean, currently being RFC'd—would be enough to turn me off FACing my stuff forever. :-( (In fact I've just come off a long FAC strike for a lot less, touchy as I am). Bishonen | talk 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, I'm not fuming about it; but then it wasn't aimed at me. Radiant may be, though. If you've seen it, I'm sorry to bring it up again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template request

Hello. I've put together a template on the Restoration comedy of manners, and taken some of the play titles from the Restoration comedy page, and added a few more in my collection. However, some of the ones on the article page I don't know, so I was wondering if you'd have a moment to confirm whether or not they're comedy of manners, or just plain comedies written during that period. The ones I'm not sure about are:

The Lucky Chance
Bury Fair
Sir Anthony Love
Sir Harry Wildair

Many thanks, DionysosProteus 12:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice box! Very attractive and useful, and I always like it when they're placed at the foot of the page. I'd definitely call those Restoration comedies of manners, yes. Sir Anthony Love is discussed a bit in Breeches role, btw. Bishonen | talk 23:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Grand. Many thanks. DionysosProteus 16:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS reverts

Hi Bishonen. I don't know if you watch this page in general or if you want to remain involved, but Radiant! is being totally intractable, even with your very simple version of the GNL recommendation.[2] Odd for an editor I've always found measured and willing to talk. Not sure how to proceed—I have a definite sense from the language that s/he's using that the reverts are going to continue. Marskell 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're right, I suppose he may eventually be blocked by somebody uninvolved for edit warring, as outlandish as words like "blocked" and "edit warring" sound in connection with Radiant. I've always admired his style, so I'm pretty unamused that he's ignoring all I say like some no-account trolling. Anyway. The uncharacteristic belligerence and impatience, which I've noticed in other ongoing discussions too, sound like he might be going through a patch of—I don't know (boldly commenting on the editor, not the edit, here)—burnout, maybe. I tried, anyway. Not much more I can do. Bishonen | talk 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I've always found Radiant! rather radiant. Burnout or late-blooming bitterness (the complete change in Durin saddened me, as another example). But the GNL debate is full of surprises. This from Raul was a bit of a shock: "'He' is the correct English language word for the third-person gender neutral or undefined pronoun. That's what I was taught in school, and that's what they still teach in school" from an editor that I've gathered is under-30. Are there still syllabi that advocate masculine and masculine alone? Perhaps south of some latitude in the U.S.? Marskell 10:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caption Contest

It's been slow on this page lately! My watchlist hasn't changed in 2 days. So, in the spirit of Giano, can we have another painting caption contest?

**Marriage painting of Giovanni Arnolfini and his wife Giovanna Cenami.**

"My Lord, my stomach still hurts. I hope another furry dog shant emerge from my nether regions!" --SGT Tex 01:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Oh noes it's the Talk:Kiev/naming page!" Bishonen | talk 12:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
"It's not a baby, it's a balloon."--Ronnie Barker 12:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I have to pee. Would you let the dog out so she doesn't chew my sandals?" - Jehochman ^Talk 01:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev vs. Kyiv

You're the first admin who's name appears at Talk:Kiev/naming so I deliver this request to your good hands. It would be a blessing for the project if Horlo would drop his request, but I think he is completely incapable of self control. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch... OMG... How about WP:RFCU? Meanwhile, I've cravenly hid behind a "Who, me? Too sick!" template, see top of page, and hastily passed on your baby, or hot potato, to my favorite hot potato man. Bishonen | talk 12:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Get well soon. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel better, hon! (an order) El_C 22:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha

As for two-dozen speaker languages, I seem to have upscaled: I spent the last three months in a lovely mountain village in eastern Ghana researching a language spoken by about 10,000-15,000 speakers. Very busy currently (analyzing three-months worth of field work data is no easy task), but I do hope to at least fix that red link... — mark ✎ 08:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and only now I see that dready banner on top of this page — I do hope that you will feel better soon! Please take the picture above to be a suggestion for a proper health resort, rather than an attempt to make you jealous! — mark ✎ 08:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]