→Harumph!: Hi! |
For once I found a timely good one for the (more or less) new week |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
'''Heartfelt sigh of the week:''' |
'''Heartfelt sigh of the week:''' |
||
'''[ |
'''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_October_24&diff=520481443&oldid=520476195 I find that the more this is discussed the less I care.]"''' |
||
<br> |
<br> |
||
<br> |
<br> |
Revision as of 20:58, 30 October 2012
Heartfelt sigh of the week:
"I find that the more this is discussed the less I care."
Arbitration Committee
You don't know me but it's impossible not to know (something about) you here. Would you consider running for the committee this time please? You've got the experience, brains and sensibility, and the latter, particularly, is badly lacking there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I was just getting here for the same reason Bish. I saw NYB's post here, and after running through a few folks I complete my journey here. I think we all know that is where you should be. You have a wonderful combination of common sense, insight, honesty, integrity and it is all tempered by such a huge heart filled with compassion. You have the time served, you've suffered the time in purgatory, you've been witness to so much history - your insight would be invaluable at Arbcom. Please consider an honest run at it? I know the history of Bishxxx humor and all - but I ask this without any intent of jokes. Please think about it? Please? — ChedZILLA 03:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you both very much for the kind words, but please see my incidental self-declaration here. Also, my wikitime is simply too limited in recent years. My wikipatience always was. Lately, Darwinbish has been dropping hints all over the place that she wants to run, but I'm frankly not sure she'd have even my vote. A suggestion: you might want to go pester User:Worm That Turned to run again this year. He's a very calm, insightful, and experienced guy, who was beaten to the post last year by a mere 0.5% by Jclemens.[1] IMO things might have been a little different here if it had been the other way around. And, importantly, Worm doesn't seem to be as burnt-out as the rest of the universe of calm, insightful, and experienced wikipedians, such as Heimstern, Floquenbeam, MastCell. At least a year ago, he actually wanted to be an arb. Sadly, that's getting to be an increasingly rare qualification.
- I've thought for years that you'd be perfect for the job, and still do. Mmm. I understand about the time thing, though. It's a bit of a commitment.
- I thought asking MastCell would be futile, but did anyway. (No response yet.) I'd feel a bit odd approaching the WormTT because, not only does he not know me, I don't know him. Hopefully someone closer to him will ask. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'll think about what you have said. And by the way .. I really don't care about any of the US vs. UK stuff...— ChedZILLA 14:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Since I've been mentioned, and in case anyone's wondering about me: Burnt-out-ness aside, I, like Bish, really don't have wikitime for arbitrating. I don't know how Risker does it. Wish I could, though; I criticize so much I really feel like I ought to offer my own services instead. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- What about this: you both take it on, and MastCell, and Carcharoth, and do your best with the time you have? It's got to be an improvement on the present situation, even if you have to decline a few marginal cases. My last word. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- My ears are burning, unsurprising since a certain lady knows I watch her page! Thank you for your kind comments above, I'm pretty sure I don't deserve them but I'll certainly accept them :) As to whether I'll run or not, I really haven't decided. I've gone through phases this year of really enjoying everything wikipedia and little phases of distaste for the project. I'm astounded at some of the stupidity at Arbcom, from both the cases presented and the comments made. Especially, right now, I wonder how it can turn people I respected into people who would use a request for clarification into a ban against such community uproar. Do I want to be part of that? Would I become part of the problem?
- When I drive on British motorways, there are lots of idiots in the fast lane, in their fancy German cars, tailgating and acting like idiots. I would drive my Yaris and tut. Then, my dad went sailing for a month and left me his Audi to look after. I found that everything about the car encouraged that behaviour, the comfort, the power, the silence,... It all lead to me driving faster and more aggressively. Where does the line get drawn, when sensible people become idiots. WormTT(talk) 20:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're very shrewd, Worm. This is a belated reply, but I've been mulling over it somewhat, and RL kept getting in the way. Power encourages aggressive driving, yeah. Mind you, some people of no special wikiposition (I'm heroically resisting linking that to a particular one-man lynch-mob I'm thinking of right now)[1] seem able to get drunk on road-rage even while driving a Lada. Comfort and silence are hardly among the factors encouraging obliviousness on arbcom right now! Although on their own sekrit mailing list, arbs who are so inclined can always enjoy the comfort of crowding the Yarises off the road in silence/private without fear of any comeback (until there's a leak on WR or its successors, that is). I have some experience of that. All right, car metaphor breaking down… I don't drive anything myself, I'm strictly public transport + bike, and I like to think it hasn't made me any nicer! Anyway, generally speaking, users with good judgment are more likely than others to be elected to the committee, even though the selection has been known to work badly and even on occasion disastrously. (And those I will link! There's nothing new there, after all.) The majority of arbs seem well aware of the need for resisting the temptations of office, IMO. The worst part of being an arb, it seems to me, must be the culture of silence, of "never apologize, never explain", of presenting a united front — a culture that's somewhat unravelling before our eyes right now, but which was in full force when things blew up with regard to, uh, the other arb I just linked to, and which will no doubt knit itself up again. That is one of my own strongest reasons for disappointing the cheering multitude (see, two people!) who try to persuade me to run (that, and my enjoyment of being urged, and modestly pushing the crown away), not least because I've seen how it's likely to sour previous friendships. The sheer busyness plays a part there too, of course. Take me, I've had friends… and then they were arbs for a term or two… and then… well, I won't go into it. Some of them never post here any more, and perhaps wouldn't be all that welcome if they did. (But I don't mean you, Paul! You're always welcome here!) It's a shame when that happens. :-( Bishonen | talk 16:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC).
- The cardinality of the multitude would have been greater if not for the rapidity of the wet blanket with which you slapped the idea down. (Understandbly so, as ArbCom is our own version of Wiki-22 -- we don't want crazy people to be on it, but I think you'd have to be a little bit crazy to run -- a massive unpaid time sink for the privilege of nearly non-stop abuse and aggravation.)Nobody Ent 16:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're very shrewd, Worm. This is a belated reply, but I've been mulling over it somewhat, and RL kept getting in the way. Power encourages aggressive driving, yeah. Mind you, some people of no special wikiposition (I'm heroically resisting linking that to a particular one-man lynch-mob I'm thinking of right now)[1] seem able to get drunk on road-rage even while driving a Lada. Comfort and silence are hardly among the factors encouraging obliviousness on arbcom right now! Although on their own sekrit mailing list, arbs who are so inclined can always enjoy the comfort of crowding the Yarises off the road in silence/private without fear of any comeback (until there's a leak on WR or its successors, that is). I have some experience of that. All right, car metaphor breaking down… I don't drive anything myself, I'm strictly public transport + bike, and I like to think it hasn't made me any nicer! Anyway, generally speaking, users with good judgment are more likely than others to be elected to the committee, even though the selection has been known to work badly and even on occasion disastrously. (And those I will link! There's nothing new there, after all.) The majority of arbs seem well aware of the need for resisting the temptations of office, IMO. The worst part of being an arb, it seems to me, must be the culture of silence, of "never apologize, never explain", of presenting a united front — a culture that's somewhat unravelling before our eyes right now, but which was in full force when things blew up with regard to, uh, the other arb I just linked to, and which will no doubt knit itself up again. That is one of my own strongest reasons for disappointing the cheering multitude (see, two people!) who try to persuade me to run (that, and my enjoyment of being urged, and modestly pushing the crown away), not least because I've seen how it's likely to sour previous friendships. The sheer busyness plays a part there too, of course. Take me, I've had friends… and then they were arbs for a term or two… and then… well, I won't go into it. Some of them never post here any more, and perhaps wouldn't be all that welcome if they did. (But I don't mean you, Paul! You're always welcome here!) It's a shame when that happens. :-( Bishonen | talk 16:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC).
- (e/c) After reading his insightful comments above, I think I may vote for WTT whether he runs or not (surely there's going to be an involuntary write-in mechanism?). I also plan on writing in Bishonen, Bishzilla, and DarwinBish (all three) MastCell, and User:Immature Basophil, so that's 6 right there. I'm sure I can think of a few others who would initially refuse but could ultimately be forced at gunpoint to serve. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Let's see, there's also User:Little Stupid, User:Darwinfish, User:Bish and chips, User:Gooch, User:Bearded Burro, User:Baby Tex and User:Floquenstein's monster. Now, THAT's an arbcom! Tex (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- And little User:Chedzilla! bishzilla ROARR!! 10:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC).
- Let's see, there's also User:Little Stupid, User:Darwinfish, User:Bish and chips, User:Gooch, User:Bearded Burro, User:Baby Tex and User:Floquenstein's monster. Now, THAT's an arbcom! Tex (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Baby Tex will fit seamlessly, for sure. Proposed finding of fact: Horsh! And guess what, Floq, I have discovered by brilliant research that there is actually a User:Cat smell, although as you can see they (ho! hum! who could it possibly be!) don't have any userpages. And dead or not, User:Catherine de Burgh (the late) will live forever in legend and in song, and deserves all our votes. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC).
- I am authorised to point out that you are mistaken Mrs Bishonen. Due to the happy miracle of cryogenics and modern science, Her ladyship is restored to full health and currently cruising on her steam yacht in the Balearics. As Wikipedia’s constitutional monarch and official head of state, Her Ladyship will be returning in December to appoint her Arbcom and permit their ceremonial kissing of her hand. She will also be making a Christmas Eve broadcast to the people of Wikipedia, and announcing her New Year’s honours list. Vera Corpus (Miss) (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh dear, Miss Corpus, I suppose in a way that's good news, but… are you saying that User:Ka of Catherine de Burgh is no longer active? :-( That's tragic. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC).
- That's good news indeed. I always thought the ceremony of kissing Lady Catherine's hand much more salubrious than the sight of the newly-appointed arbitrators lining up to kiss Jimbo's ring. --Famously Sharp (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh dear, Miss Corpus, I suppose in a way that's good news, but… are you saying that User:Ka of Catherine de Burgh is no longer active? :-( That's tragic. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC).
- Well, I'm feeling a little more positive towards it at least, perhaps you have turned me! I've got some real life bits and bobs happening, it may affect things - but overall, I probably will run. I've heard the downsides, and I think I can handle them. WormTT(talk) 11:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thats very nice to know, Mr Worm, and I sure Her Ladyship will be very pleased to appoint you to be 2nd Wikipedian. As for you, Mrs Bishonen, I can assure you that Her Ladyship is very active indeed, but now that she's head-of-state and 1st Wikipedian, you can't expect her to descend and post on pages such as yours - allthough I beleive you did have regretable dealings with the previous, unfortunate incumbent of that high office - you may, however, post on her page and she may find the time to address you in audience. Vera Corpus (Miss) (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why thank you Miss Corpus, though I do not expect Her Ladyship to concern herself with the likes of me. Indeed, I am personally hoping that she will time the unveiling her reanimated cadaver, the zenith of the social dilettante, to coincide with the Mayan apocalypse, whenceforth she can rule the encyclopedia with an iron fist. However, in general, my personal wishes do not come to fruition, so perhaps there will be difficulties. WormTT(talk) 12:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm feeling a little more positive towards it at least, perhaps you have turned me! I've got some real life bits and bobs happening, it may affect things - but overall, I probably will run. I've heard the downsides, and I think I can handle them. WormTT(talk) 11:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Got it, Miss Corpus, the Ladyship is active. Spiffing, but I meant, what about the Ka? I fear this means we've lost her ? :-( Bishonen | talk 12:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC).
I feel this is my territory rather than that of Miss Corpus, who should not be opining on Her Ladyship’s spiritual matters. In fact, Miss Corpus should confine herself to her secretarial duties and her typewriter. At the court of Lady Catherine, we all have our areas of expertise and Miss Corpus should stick to hers limited though that is. On the subject of Her Ladyship’s Ka that belongs to the paranormal, and where the paranormal and Her Ladyship are concerned nothing must ever be presumed or assumed because both are likely to rear up behind you when you least expect it. Something Miss Corpus would do well to remember if she keeps interfering into my responsibilities and attempting to ingratiate herself with Lady Catherine. Rev Dr Augustus Deepthought (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure the Reverend Doctor knows his stuff, but it is most likely that the ka will have been reincorporated in Her Ladyship in order to revive her. If Imhoptep is anything to go by I think you should worry more that she'll be after various organs to replace those placed in canopic jars. I'm not sure all this zombie stuff is what we expect of the aristocracy anyway, they normally have the good grace to stay dead unless their resurrection is required for a ludicrous storyline in Downton Abbey. Yomanganitalk 13:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Also, your duties seem remarkably diverse, Reverend Doctor, though I note you're edit-warring to conceal the fact. Perhaps Miss Corpus and Imhoptep are more reliable sources. Bishonen | talk 13:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC).
- ^ But I hope nobody who frequents this page is capable of the stupidity of supposing I'm referring to Malleus Fatuorum.
Your proposed motion
I have removed your proposed motion, as only arbitrators may propose motions. If you wish to suggest a way forward to the arbitrators, I suggest you make a statement instead. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- ? I have not proposed a motion. That was RegentsPark. I merely called for a clerk to remove it. That was sarcasm. Bishonen | talk 13:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC).
Opinion?
Hi.
Can I ask your opinion about this, if you're interested? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hm. Mmmmm. OK. Aren't you sorry you asked? Bishonen | talk 18:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC).
- (P.S. Don't know what happened with the two saves. I seem to have got an edit conflict with myself.)
- Not yet. I like having my mind changed. Answered there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
More insipid than casual
Regarding the following text:
This user loves the sound of their own voice. You probably think that if you ignore them they might eventually shut up, but you reckon without their inflated sense of their own importance.
Inconveniently, the English language no longer provides its users with gender-neutral, singular pronouns. While the regal we, us, and ours might be applied to comedic effect, the pronouns they, them, and their are exclusively plural. As you have indicated you are on something of a vacation, I have ginned up some grammatically-correct options:
This user loves the sound of his own voice. Those who expect to win another's silence by ignoring him will be disappointed by this user's inflated sense of self-importance.
This user loves the sound of his own voice. Those who expect to win this user's silence by ignoring him fail to account for his inflated sense of self-importance.
This user loves the sound of his own voice. Anyone expecting to win this user's silence by ignoring him fails to account for this user's inflated sense of self-importance.
Patronanejo (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're mistaken, they, them and their are not exclusively plural. They were once, but they aren't now. Is it a rule that they're exclusively plural? No. Who says they are? Not the grammarians. Ignorant schoolteachers who formed their notions on the matter long ago, possibly. It's a pity that many people seem to get their notions of "grammar rules" from that class of schoolteachers (who are in the minority, I'm sure). They, them and their may not be ideal for referring to a single person of no specified gender, but they're what we've got. Going back to privileging the masculine pronoun would be regress. In this case, since I'm myself of a determinate gender (female) it would be positively weird if the {{User:Yomangani/Gabby}} template on my userpage called me "he". If you'd like to subst it and edit it to refer to a "she", be my guest, I've no objection. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC).
- To bluntly put it: neither me or Bish follow the rules that 18th-century grammarians came up with. Yomanganitalk 13:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- i believe you might mean "neither Bish nor I".... apologies for the intrusion. kc15:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I believe he didn't, Killer. Are you not used to the Yoman's manner of making a point in a way that's suitable to the occasion? Note the strange word order, too: "To bluntly put it". (Though perhaps indeed he did mean to say "the rules up with which 18th-century grammarians came.")Bishonen | talk 15:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC).
- i believe you might mean "neither Bish nor I".... apologies for the intrusion. kc15:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation, but I'm not that fanatical--I was compelled to visit by a mention in Encylopaedia Dramatica. By no means am I going to impose my will on another's user page, but by no means am I mistaken. This is not a matter of pedantry, or an anachronistic refusal to accept language as a fluid medium. I have no objection to the casual use of the object pronoun me in place of the subject pronoun I (as Yomangani does above), but its opposite--the use of the subject pronoun Iin place of the object pronoun me--is insipid-sounding and wrong, no matter how many times you hear people trying to make themselves appear smarter than they are.
Although schoolteachers who know the difference may well be in the minority, they are not the ignorant ones--you've got it completely backwards. Treating the pronouns they, them, and their as though they were singular is not even acceptable on the pages of USA Today.
However, you deserve an apology for my inability to determine whether your username indicated a male- or female user--ignorance is ignorance.Patronanejo (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Patronanejo, following the Wikipedia has an article on everything principle... Wikipedia has an article on this phenomenon, singular they. Perhaps you'll find it interesting, even if you do find it insipid. WormTT(talk) 13:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- "inability to determine whether your username indicated a male- or female" is a damn fine case for using singular "they". pablo 15:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not especially keen on singular they in formal writing, but it's generally accepted in common speech, and a userbox is common speech. Even the Chicago manual seems in agreement with its use in common speech (which is admittedly hardly the province of the Chicago manual). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. Shakespeare is also in agreement with the singular use. Bishonen | talk 12:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC).
- Along with Jane Austen and William M. Thackery. August company, indeed. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it wasn't the province of Chicago until Chicago had the bizarre idea of getting some "language maven" who has only a hazy notion of English grammar to utter on English grammar. (See this.) Still, even the hapless Garner gets some things right. ¶ No, the place to look is the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, which points out that singular they has been with us since Middle English. ¶ To anyone who continues to bleat that they is necessarily plural and he is sex-neutral, try asking (i) how it is that the extension of a term that normally has plural reference to include singular is grammatically (or logically or whatever) more heinous than the extension of a term that normally has male reference to include female, and (ii) about the acceptability of "Ask your father or your mother if he would like a ticket for the concert." -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. Shakespeare is also in agreement with the singular use. Bishonen | talk 12:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC).
Reciprocity
Bishonen,
Please leave a warning against SM for his personal attacks or stay off my page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Your removal of a post to your page by Scott Macdonald where he undertakes never to post on your page again with the edit summary "Don't post here again" demonstrates your battleground mentality in a nice little nutshell, KW. As for me, do not be concerned; I'll only post on your page again if I have a block message to give you, not for any other purpose. Of course you will reciprocally stay off mine. Won't you? Bishonen | talk 23:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC).
- I've had no interest in you since your last accusations that I and Lihaas were supporting the Sverigedemokraterna, and you in fact suggested a mutual interaction ban, which you violated by posting more ... oh how should I say this, ..., oh ,,,Bishonenisms. I trust you can supply the diff
- ScottMacdonald wrote personal attacks. If he wishes to uphold civility, then he
- To answer your question, I repeat that I've no interest in you, and if you stop the questions and snide comments, I'll certainly resume the no interaction ban you originally proposed, and which I've kept. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Harumph!
Just saw this. What am I, chopped liver? Tex (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're Bishzilla's friend. But seriously, you haven't been around much, have you? Bishonen | talk 15:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC).
- (*disengages cloaking device*) I'll come by and say hello. "Hello, Bish! Hello Tex!" (*re-engages cloaking device*) --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)