User talk:Bunchofgrapes/Archive 8

This is a talk page archive. Editing it may fall you afoul of the legendary curse of King Bunch's tomb.

Barton in the Beans

Funnily enough!!! I shall be within a few miles of that village on Friday, if I am finished in time I may swing around that way with the camera, as it would be amusing to take a photograph for the page wouldn't it. Personally tonight to coin an old English metaphor I am "full of beans" just wondering where to edit next to achieve a maximum result - any suggestions.... I feel a song coming on. Giano | talk 19:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said full of beans, what do you make of this edit [1] then. Never a dull moment is there? Giano | talk 21:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to type with 100% confidence that Bunchofgrapes is slightly tired of your attitude as well. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Giano is bringing up a valid issue for you to consider, EE: anybody you nominate for admin *is* obviously going to have a cloud of suspicion form immediately around them; it's rather a disservice for you to nominate them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't quite answer my question. But thank you for ranting. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• What exactly is your question dear, you're even less coherent than usual this evening Giano | talk 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please. I never even asked a question, I just realized. Coherent? Who says I'm never coherent? Only people who have nothing better to do than rant and place nonsense on Wikipedia. Do us a favour and get a job, feed the kids, and deprive the community of your random baloney. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize to Bunchofgrapes for all of this. I wouldn't have to bother you if Giano would just stop. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

EE, could you do me a favor and stop edit-warring over the EE/HW link in the RfA? You have already admitted here that you were Hollow Wilerding; further fighting over that is unneccessary. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, stalking, I see (and it's evident). No, I didn't admit it, I implied it. Hollow Wilerding was operated by two persons. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't believe that it was operated by two people, then you might want to speak with Merlin. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please go read Wikipedia:Harrassment, particularly the section on "wikistalking".

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.

In other words, checking up on your contributions is OK -- and sensible, given how disruptive your various incarnations have been at one time or another -- while following someone around making annoying edits on articles they are working on is bad.

As for whether one or another of you puppet accounts was operated by one, two, or fifteen people: who cares? The result is the same. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? No, it is not the same. Fifteen different people is not one person. And no, constantly consistently looking at my contributions is wikistalking. Period. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Both your reading comprehension and your grasp of common sense are seemingly faulty. If you were one of the two people who ran Hollow Wilerding, then you must be prepared to take responsibility for anything the account did. That responsibility may be shared jointly with some other party (if you say so), but you both then share full joint responsibility. You were both Hollow Wilerding for all intents and purposes. As for your incorrect definition of "wikistalking", all I can say is that you should go read Wikipedia:Harrassment again until you get it. If you edit on Wikipedia, you shouldn't mind people examining your contributions. I sure don't. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, I'm sick of your obnoxious excuses and immature piling-up. This will be all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Does that mean she's gone again? Giano | talk 07:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Question? If Eternal Equinox admitted to also being Hollow Wilerding -- a banned user -- shouldn't Eternal Equinox be blocked for being a sockpuppet of H.W., and all her IP addresses be banned from editing Wikipedia per Wikipedia official policy[2]? HeyNow10029 03:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hollow Wilerding isn't banned -- just notorious. The account hasn't even been blocked since around January 22, 2006. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

HeyNow, I have replied on your page. Bishonen | talk 09:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

I checked and s/he hasn't violated the 3RR... yet. S/he is editing disruptively however. - FrancisTyers · 16:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Eternal Equinox]] reported by User:~~~===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897}}. {{3RRV|Eternal_Equinox}}: 

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S._A._Andr%C3%A9e%27s_Arctic_balloon_expedition_of_1897&oldid=57433036  22:36, 7 June 2006]
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S._A._Andr%C3%A9e%27s_Arctic_balloon_expedition_of_1897&diff=57451634&oldid=57435934  00:44, 8 June 2006]
* 2rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S._A._Andr%C3%A9e%27s_Arctic_balloon_expedition_of_1897&diff=57523509&oldid=57460210  12:30, 8 June 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S._A._Andr%C3%A9e%27s_Arctic_balloon_expedition_of_1897&diff=57547535&oldid=57524182 16:18, 8 June 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]

I'm going out, if s/he reverts again, feel free to use the template I part filled out above, if not feel free to delete it :) - FrancisTyers · 16:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You missed the fact that 22:36, June 7, 2006 (your "original") has elements reverting to EE's version from 20:13, May 21, 2006. EE is in violation already. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of us remember that the troubles with HW weren't the offenses but the block evasion. Sitting at a library in Canada and getting every terminal blocked one after another, anything at all to avoid serving the sentence. I suppose we'll see rather a tedious repeat now with this totally different user EE. Geogre 12:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A small cadeau

The Grapes, Aylesbury. Here you are as you like it so much, your very own little architectural gem to live in, early 19th century urban design, showing early Italianate cornicing.

And here are some grapes for the Grapes orangery.

Block log

The sound of three people snapping.[3] Bishonen | talk 20:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

Mine's longest! I win! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I bake your parding. Quickest thinker wins. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

Everybody's a winner! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the shortest one won? ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

More of a moral victory. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If shortest won, I won. If longest, Bunch won. If quickest, Bish won. Hence the "all winners" scenario. Except EE, who has complicated matters by block evasion, cursing, making threats, and generally the type behavior which got her/him/them blocked to begin with. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

/me casually blows smoke away from the Smith & Wesson, sticks it back in belt. Actually, the first person to notice and remark on the threeway tie wins. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC).

Well, according to [person], it was a case of pure innocence and big blue meanies misunderstanding "pickiness" for moronia and persistence for vandalism. The beat(ing) goes on, and one wonders why it's worth anyone's time. If there were a fulcrum, with all the good done on one side and all the aggravation, destruction, and lying on the other, the beam would knock a hole in the ground deeper than Loch Ness. Geogre 03:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: You signature

Perhaps this is better? I nearly halved the length.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 04:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Food

How come I don't see you have ever touched one of the most important food articles on Wikipedia? the iBook of the Revolution 19:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What an awful article! I don't know, I'm missing out. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I remember...

Thank you for your helpful and insightful notes on the Torchic FAC, it has now reached status! Thanks again, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Highway! Very gracious of you. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Food 2

Hi Bunch, I was looking at the FA page and noticed the food section has significantly lower number of featured articles than others (with the exception of the psychology section)... couldn't help but wonder why it is so unloved, considering its importance as one of the basic necessities of our life.

Btw, as the one who has worked on Butter and Cheese, I thought you might be interested in improving Milk. The article has a lot of space for improvement, in my view. --BorgQueen 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi BorgQueen! Boy you've been quiet lately!

Yeah, I've looked at Milk a few times. It's not good, that's for sure. Also perhaps it should be split into Milk (biology) and Milk (food and drink) or something like that. Maybe not. Speaking of food, how come you haven't put Durian through Peer Review or up on FA? You're not having perfectionism issues, are you? ;-)

Why aren't there more Food and Drink FAs? Luck of the draw, maybe? I suppose it could be something more -- food articles tend to attract casual editors who add lots of uncited material, Original Research, and bad writing that you then have to deal with (it's no coincidence that my three food FAs were pretty small articles before I got to them, you know!). Fancruft articles have a similar problem, but they are a lot easier to clean up, since there's generally no actual research or scholarship on fancruft topics. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I've been pretty busy offline. A new person came into my life and am living with him now. A real challenge, since we are from radically different background (he happens to be a Pakistani who "speaks" hip hop) but then life is full of small challenges..

Thanks for the sage advice for Food FA matter. As for our smelly but precious Durian, I know it won't reach FA status without nutritional info and am trying to fix it. Since I know what to do for now I suppose it would be more appropriate to submit Peer Review request after having done something about it. Congrats for the new shiny star — btw don't they have any "wiki sage" barnstar? :-D --BorgQueen 22:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, congratulations on your new person! A hip-hop speaking Pakistani sounds like he's from a radically different background than... pretty much everyone on earth?! :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean...

...apart from his entire conduct for the 18 months or so since I've been aware of his existence? Don't misunderstand. I really couldn't give a shit if Dreamguy dies of cancer of the ego. I do give a shit that no admin or sysop has made any serious attempt to make him behave like a decent human being (what have you personally done to try and bring any of his type of playground bully into line? I'm just curious). Actually, strike that. I'm quite a way beyond giving a shit about whether anyone is prepared to address the disease that is eating WP from the inside out. Icundell 21:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What a lovely person you seem to be! Anybody could tell from your charming prose that you're a real pleasure to work with. I know, I know, it's somehow DreamGuy's fault. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppose you could try the novel approach of checking the facts, rather than wondering what 'seems' to be. I realise that would entail exercising a little responsibility to go with the Admin authority and that it wouldn't be quite so easy to come to such a lazy conclusion, but on the upside you might learn what all those dead Greek blokes were on about. Icundell 15:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Italia victorious

Repubblica Italiana. I thought you may like to have one of these to wave for the duration of the world cup. That you too may then share in the ultimate glorious victory that will be ours

So cruel. Giano knows that if he gives an American a chance to make fun of socc..er..football, the American will rise to the bait. (Help me out here, which was more boring, the 1-0 own-goal England/Paraguay debacle, or the 0-0 Sweden/Trinidad-and-Tobago tie?) And that once I do rise to the bait, I'll be looked down upon as a dumb basketball-and-pro-wrestling-loving 'merican. Well it worked. Some advice for the Swedish team in future games: try to kick the ball through the other team's goal, it makes for a more exciting game. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, why does the building Giano gave you have a Danish flag in its window? Or is that just four different people surrendering? There is actually a world cup worth watching: the women's World Cup. Now that's soccer! Finesse rather than brute strength, passes instead of divot-making-contests, and beautiful women "glowing." Wow. Oh, and most of the players are Tarheels. Geogre 03:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the Cross of Saint Geogre, silly! Apparently the Brits have grown weary of their old flag, or something. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Cross of Saint Geogre? Wow. I've interceded in a number of Wiki-disputes, but I don't think any have resulted in miracles. Geogre 15:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what will be a miracle? Getting those jackanapes to stop with this "footnotes must be used and must have my favorite code in them." As intemperate as I was, it was all I could do to not start using very short, very Anglo-Saxon words. Geogre 21:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cýse! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Look, just let them de-FA all our pages - what will they have to put in their place. Pokemon princesses and pages on pop videos, do you really think that will be allowed to happen? Giano | talk 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Or worse... Maybe some tripe about the glories of Forza Italia or whatever your sorry team is named... ++Lar: t/c 22:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose Giano is right, but then what they'll choose to replace them with will be Tony's efforts and extensively referenced, with footnotes that blink and have sound effects, articles on "memes." Memes! Don't we all love those bleedin' memes! (And Lar, you're overcrediting them, there. They'll be articles on individual footballers, aged 20, and their vast "careers" and "cultural import." They'll be on "glamour models" (i.e. mammary freaks and silicone sisters), with lots of references that blow their noses at the reader. Geogre 22:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That may well be the case, so ultimatly the encyclopedia's loss; but I for one only write an FA once, I may add some more information if I discover it, but I am not trooping back to the library (who knows who one may meet!) to re-reference a page, as for me passing FA is the end of the subject. Giano | talk 06:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Tearing through your watchlist?

Heh, you should see my watchlist! I'm in a rush to get it done, tho, as you can imagine. Nothing like vandals calling your fellow editor's employers to make you start thinking about privacy issues! BD2412 T 02:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Autostereogram

Hey hey! I was just wondering about this being moved to 'failed' status when the comments on the FAC page only indicate weak objects based on specific issues which are still being changed. FredHsu has made it clear that he is addressing the issues. Is it that there is a specific timeframe that these things have to be dealt with in? Thanks. Skittle 17:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I wasn't sure what the procedure tended to be. Skittle 18:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Bunchofgrapes. I know the nomination has been archived, but I continued to enhance it and to add inline citations. I believe it is now done. I'll try to nominate it myself next time. How long should I wait? Please see updated comments on the Review page Fred Hsu 02:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Waaaaaaaaah!

I am SO Queen Elizabeth! Yes I am! Liz 06:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

More Boudicca I would have said. Giano | talk 08:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[Unbends graciously, hands Giano a dukedom.] Very well, that will do. As long as I'm treated like a queen and whatever I say goes and Liz admits I'm the only person in the world. Bishonen | talk 09:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

• Well unfortunatly for Your Majesty I fear the pretender to your throne is still a long way from abdicating and even further from exile. Sometimes I wonder if the French did not have the right idea after all. Giano | talk 10:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why are you vandalised so often? You must encourage it somehow. I'd never heard of tea bagging before. Some odd habits sound quite engaging, if one has a willing partner, and even less likely the time; but that one sounds very uncomfortable, make my eyes water just thinking about the possibilities of injury, but at least one learns something new here - must be an American habit. You know there are some very odd people about this place - yes, I have just realised! Anyhow I'm off to bed, the hours of darkness are upon us! Have a restful evening, it must be about time for the first martini in Idaho. I'd drink it if I were you. Giano | talk 21:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I suppose if I said I found that particular vandalism riotously funny, it would only encourage more of the same? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing funny about that, I'm still sitting here with crossed legs! - must try to uncross and go upstairs, g'night! Giano | talk 21:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me.

Sorry to bother you. This userUser:ForestH2 still bothering me. I'm innocent, but he is guilty. Because He still send me offensive message. So could you block him for uncivility? *~Daniel~* 03:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just asked him a question on his talk page; I'm trying to figure out what's going on. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's me explain how this is happned. First, I don't know this user. This user just take care of my business. Ask me so many questions that I did in Wikipedia. It's very inappropriate message. That's the reason I don't accept this offensive message. When I ask about something in other's talk-page. He always asks me Why did you ask this question to them. He suddenly struggled. Later, He also edits my own page without my permission. How Upset about that. *~Daniel~* 03:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And-Daniel your removing messages. You've already vandalized a couple of pages. You've broken the 3RR. And I don't take care of your busniess. I've already told you-I ask you so many questions because I don't believe that you have some of these warnings under control. You should be 'blocked for violating teh 3RR and removing messages. I edit your user page to fix some grammer of yours which is not the best. I didn't write an offensive message to you-I just gave you a warning for removing warnings and messages from your talk page. You need to stop putting "Please ignore this message" and use the right vandalisim warning templates. I reported you to the admins. And I will request arbatration as I have had it. ForestH2

helios

I planned on creating a full page, but I guess I could make it on the High School's page, as it does make more sense. mikey 03:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Courage

Brave man! Giano | talk 18:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What is it with that damn game show? It has people who just can't live with its not being at the page for the debtor's district. Geogre 21:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We're just lucky they aren't trying to replace the contents of the page. A lot more people look for cruft information than for non-cruft, I'm afraid. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

ok

this place is screwy. how the hell do i know it's right. and you call yourself an encylopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Briticanna (talk • contribs) 18:29, June 20, 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Bigfoot

Gawd. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

And you voted against him. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Seen/Appreciate

Seen the reminder. Will comply. Do humbly apologise for error. Martial Law 20:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Deliberate vandal or merely stupid?

Oh look [4] we have little Polly Chuckle back with us. How much longer has this community to endure this woman? Giano | talk 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and why have you a picture of a bandaged appendage on your page, is it syphilis week or something? Giano | talk 21:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You should have told them about that before they made it a featured picture! I think I see what you mean. You've ruined it for me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I studied first aid in the army, I am never mistaken. I was a trained stretcher bearer but I could have been a surgeon you know, had it not been for my eyesight. Giano | talk 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Loren Coleman

Reason I placed Loren's link is that he is a well known Bigfoot expert. Seen him on many documentaries. Link is www.lorencoleman.com. Hope I was not in error. Martial Law 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you re-insert Loren Coleman's website ? Martial Law 06:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Fraudulent

Wikipedia rules CLEARLY state that if there are ACTIONABLE objections an article should NOT be given FA status. What is so hard to understand about this? The rules were VIOLATED. Explain to me how they were not. Is this a NPOV website or is it not??? What are the rules for FA status???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs) .

Cornell

As you know, your alma mater Cornell University is up for FAC. I've just completed by freshmen year there, majoring in Computer Science. The other editors and I would like to request a copyedit. Not only are you familiar with the material and could clarify any confusing statements, but you would be a fresh look on the article prose. Also, further comments or a vote on the FAC would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 00:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not point out articles relating to Wikipedia standards

...when it is clear standards here are selectively followed. Thanks. --Jayzel 21:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I called it vandalism because you even deleted the history of my addition. You did not just revert. That's a "no-no".--Jayzel 21:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? You must be misreading something; I did no such thing, nor would I even think of it. Article history here —Bunchofgrapes (talk)

If you were not responsible for the deletion in the history, then my apologies to you. It was clearly removed by someone, but appears now to have been re-added. Apologies again. --Jayzel 22:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

RFAR

I have filed an RFAR against User:Eternal_Equinox listing you as an involved party at [[5]]. -- HeyNow10029 23:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dark horse takes the bisquit

Guess what, EE's recent GOODBYE FOREVER on my page followed by three (3) more posts is not the stupidest edit I've seen on wikipedia. This is the stupidest edit. Bishonen | talk 02:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

LOL! It's been a good night all around. Go. To. Sleep. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I read it three times. Did it make any sense? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I could pry some meaning out of it, though whether my interpretation and the indended one are similar is hard to say. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Unsourced Comment

No longer unsourced commentary on Re.:Bigfoot,Re:Law. I have heard on the Documentary Channels that people who grow pot amd make illegal drugs do so in remote locations, thus is one reason why law enforcement does not want people hunting Bigfoot. They either place booby traps and/or guards on the perimeter to keep out intruders. Try to tell a person who is making meth that you're after a Bigfoot. I've seen this on A&E last night. it was about drugs and law enforcement. I do not mean to be in error. Martial Law 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Two favorite traps are the Punji stakes seen in the Viet Nam War and guns, grenades rigged to go off when you step on a "trip wire". When you do, it goes off, either serverely maiming you or killing you. These are a problem for the DEA, ATF, other law enforcement, innocent civilians. Martial Law 22:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as I've told you before, isn't a how-to guide, or an advice column. The fact that people may try to harm you if you tromp merrily through the countryside looking for a legendary creature is advice that is only tangentially at best releated to bigfoot. It is the kind of information that belongs on embarassing radio shows or schlocky television quote-documentaries-unquote, not in an encyclopedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the reminder. I was imagining spotting this on the news:"Bigfoot hunter slain by Pot Growers' booby trap", and been told by police about these matters. Again appreciate the reminder. I do apologise for being in error. Oh, by the way, someone has accused DreamGuy of using socks. He may need you help. Martial Law 23:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

ForestH2

Hello, Bunchofgrapes. Do you remember my problem in Wikipedia? Today, User:ForestH2 still made personal attack in my talk-page, and demonstrates bad behaviour again like this eventhough I told him stop, do not make personal attack again nicely, but He simply ignored it. [6]. This is an evidence He put my name that I'm vandalizer. That's completely non-sense I have ever seen. So, Could you help me to solve this problem? *~Daniel~* 02:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Bunchofgrapes....Look at my message.....I told Jurgens not to vandalize, but if he thinks that Daniel is vandalizing he should revert it. I've never seen a user who can't even understand English. It's not even his page. So, don't you think it was right letting Jurgens decide wether he wants to vandalize or if he wants to look at Daniel's edit? ForestH2 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea, Bunchofgrapes! --ForestH2 02:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

When He sent me message, he always spelled wrong, and also his message makes me very confused. *~Daniel~* 02:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I spell wrong. Well I'll try and look at my spelling. ForestH2 02:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The two of you are amazing. Daniel: ForestH2 didn't say what you think he did. ForestH2: I can barely make heads or tails out of anything Daniel or you say, and I have no idea what you are going on about on Jürgens' page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I've never edited in Jurgen's talk page. *~Daniel~* 03:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, the part of what I said after "ForestH2:" was directed at ForestH2. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you explain to me how to solve this problem? Because I do not want to make Personal Attack in Wikipedia. *~Daniel~* 03:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the answer is. I'd encourage Forest to stay away from your talk page, and I'd also encourage you to try harder to understand what Forest is saying -- you are misinterpreting him as making attacks or accusing you of things when he isn't. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm going to stay away from his talk page, but I'm removing vandalisim and personal attacks. If you can't see that, your computer must be having problems. ForestH2

I just wanted to know...when giving someone a vandalisim warning what templates do you use? Do you start off with {{Template:Test3}} or {{Template:Test2}}? Because it wouldn't be fair to start off with Test 3 due to the fact that they would only get two warnings. ForestH2 21:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of the vandalism. If something might be a test edit -- a new person seeing whether pages really are editable -- {{test}} is the way to go, but if an edit is clearly meant to offend or disrupt, starting with {{test2}} or {{test3}} is OK. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You really think so? You think it's O.K to start off at {{test4}} and block the user even if he's only vandalized two times? See my reply below. I'm very annoyed with Daniel. The discussions from Admins noticeboard/Incidents is very stupid. ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | - 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Speculation on author of butter

Oh gosh look BoG [7] you are about to become famous - perhaps he's going to discover you - will you still speak to us all when you are truly notable - perhaps you will even come to London and be interviewed on Parkinson. Oh goodness me this is all exiting. Giano | talk 10:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh damn [8] I see you already knew, I thought I had doscovered it. Giano | talk 11:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

At least we both agree that this is my clear stepping-stone to fame. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Being a Gentleman, I of course have several - so I am awarding you these spare ones as "The Silver Butter knife Award" for all your hard work making Butter a FA. Giano

Speculation on nature of troll

You reckon it's our Maggie? Bishonen | talk 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

Yes, though I'm only 65% sure, or thereabouts. The steal rod sounds like her, certainly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple of turns of phrase sound like the other one. Ah, well, who cares. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

Yeah. I suppose that possibility is why we care ;-)

without a shadow of doubt. Giano | talk 21:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Forth facfailed

Hi, about Forth failing FAC, I answered every objection, but no one supported the nomination. What more can I do? (you can reply here, I've watchlisted you) Ideogram 22:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that User:Raul654 is the decision-maker for the FACs; I just help out with the tagging. In the case of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Forth, the discussion makes it look like the first objection (density of references) hadn't been addressed. You didn't convince the objecter it had been, anyway. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you thought of making yourself a bunchbot for the tagging? Do bishbots dream of electric sheep? 03:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

I must have; look! I wonder if I could get the bot to answer the messages, too? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Impressive ! Bishonen | talk 03:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

His edits are... cloaked. Yeah. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

facfailed edits are deleting text

You've been accidentally deleting text when you edit fac to facfailed. Ideogram 22:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, really? Ugh. Maybe it's that google toolbar bug I didn't quite believe in... Thanks for letting me know. :-( OK, I think it's cleaned up. Thanks again. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Webster FAC

Hi. You recently removed the Webster nomination as failed. However, it received two votes, one up and one down with no other votes. The negative vote was addressed but more importantly, the article recieved practically no feed back; how in the world can a candidacy be rejected with merely a discourse of two? How in the world can a rejected article be improved to featured article status with very little solid feedback? How do you justify what I have to call a premature removal? TonyJoe 02:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

But that's the thing! There were no substantial objections. I can deal with the rejection, the problem is that after addressing the sole objector's concern, I don't see what else is to be done. *sigh* Anyway, I see that it wasn't really your opinion, but that of another, I'll take it to him then, thanks.TonyJoe 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes FAC nominations just don't draw much attention. It may help if you approach one or two sympathetic editors directly for some feedback - at least they may be likely to support it! -- ALoan (Talk) 10:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Might you like to...

...respond to my talkpage post about other people than Raul removing nominations, and Raul saying it's not a problem, since you've just edited the FAC instruction template in a way to presumably put paid to such disgraceful goings-on? (Or at least definitely in a way to encourage the likes of HW to put up a fight every time it happens.) Queen Elizabeth 18:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Continuing conversation over there. Needless to say (I hope) that wasn't my intention. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baskervilles

This article seems to have been resurrected. thought you should know. Just about to revert the article back to redirection. User also messed with the The Hound of the Baskervilles article. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 11:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Durian

I've fixed all the problems you pointed out, is there anything else wrong with the article that needs changed? Minun ^(talk) 18:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideots

If you want to see some real fun, look at Dorothea, the saint. The legend has her seeing an angel carrying roses and apples. It was February, so I have a link, for emphasis and for anyone who can't figure out why it's significant. I have to revert "clean up" bots every other day, as they keep "fixing" the "date fragment" link. I'm glad you reverted on Dunciad. I wish we could take these toys away from people. Geogre 00:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the "notorious Ideot" thing has a nice Ren-and-Stimpy vibe to it :-) Of course, it being from the days of yore before they invented spelling, it's actually possible to find sources referring to it both ways, but I presume "Ideot" is more original, and, at any rate, the article's author's original choice. As far as date fragments go, um... um... look! over there! A Zebu! Wow! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You wait. I predict we have 48 hours or less before the above is no longer linked. John Dennis wrote "ideot" according to Alexander Pope, who himself spelled very properly. One reason you might find it both ways is that Dennis's criticism was collected and reprinted twice in his lifetime, and the later editions regularized spellings. (And spelling was pretty damn stable by 1700. It just got set in stone with Johnson. You find Swift and Pope with very, very, very few spellings unlike our own, and Dryden too, when it comes to that.) (I've got your zebu right here.) Geogre 01:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

==Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Countdown (game show)==

Hopefully I've addressed your concerns now. Soo 14:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

EE evidence

Thanks for pointing that out to me! Hopefully others will add further evidence; I can see this RfAr resulting in a community ban. — getcrunk what?! 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)