User talk:Bunchofgrapes/Archive 12

''This is an archive. Editing it gets you seven years bad luck.''

To spin the thread
And Extraordinary Machine is making faithful edits? Do you see me fully reverting him? No. And the new thread I recently posted on Talk:Cool (song) suggests that we are decreasing the number of issues being held. Yet again, you are out to get me. You were told very clearly to leave me alone. If you bother me any further, I will open an RFC describing all your critical and intentional-stalkish behaviour. I decline the ban because I was about to make an edit reverting myself anyway. Don't believe me? Go see. 64.231.154.3 21:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This borders on a personal attack; please don't forget about your attack parole. You can't decline the ban; I am not out to get you but I am out to give EM a hand, since he is being so upstanding about not enforcing the RfAr remedy against you on a page he is involved with. Do I think Extraordinary Machine is making "faithful" edits? Yes. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And that I'm not? Bias, and because you don't like me. Ban rejected. (But I do have nothing more to edit today. If I do within the next 48 hours though, too bad for you, and I'm opening a complaint about your intentional stalking. One way or another, you will leave me alone.) 64.231.154.3 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, you can't say that I'm being disruptive because I don't agree with his views; he's being disruptive for not agreeing with mine. It's not up to you to decide who's right and who's wrong, especially since he's introducing factual inaccuracy, but you wouldn't know; he's always making faithful edits, isn't he? 64.231.154.3 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * From the little I have seen, yes, Extraordinary Machine is always making good-faithed edits, yes. Not all of us edit out of vengeance, you know. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with one of EM's views; lucky him. As a result, I'm going to change Cool (song) and will note as such on the talk page. At least this scratches away three of our arguments; three left. Progress, eh? I'd barely call this disruptive &mdash; more like advancement. At least the two of us can remedy issues faster than before. It's all part of the nice chain. Anyway, I could care less if you block this IP briefly. The library has some lovely new material that will withdraw the block immediately. I've also got to go downtown now, so enjoy your evening and treat yourself to some puffer fish (after all, it's not an insult according to the RFAr). =] 64.231.154.3 22:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit out of vegenance on Cool (song)? Please think before you talk, because it'll make you look like you know what you're talking about. 64.231.154.3 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Banned from this page
Hollow Wilerding is hereby banned from this user talkpage for a week, following the obnoxious posts above, which testify to HW's failure to grasp what an arbitration remedy is. Have you even read those remedies? Do you suppose it's up to you to keep right on shouting abuse and threats and announcing that you'll do as you please? That kind of behaviour was what the RFAR was about. I encourage all users to revert Hollow Wilerding on sight on this page and others she has been banned from. It is unfortunately difficult to block her, as usual with people who don't have the decency to edit logged in, but systematic reverts will do just as well, assuming Bunchofgrapes doesn't want to simply semiprotect his talkpage. And a warning: the way you're going at the Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement page, you're heading for a ban from that too. Incidentally, don't even think about pestering me on my page. It's semiprotected. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Thanks, Bish. I took the liberty of recorded your ban at Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox. By the way, I've got no compunctions about doing short-term anon-only blocks on the range. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have any compunction either, and this is one thing that's gotten better since January. Let's try that. Anons plus account creation blockecd, right? Say a couple of hours each time? It's a big range. And you'd better tell me exactly how to write the range in this case. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC).
 * 64.231.0.0/16 I believe is the best that can be done; I was thinking of starting out with account creation allowed and seeing if her determination to evade extended to that degree. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:BEANS--he/she is probably reading this page, so describing your plans in detail here is contraindicated. Newyorkbrad 00:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Brad, we're well aware of it, thanks. It doesn't matter. Bishonen | talk 00:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Also -- a total side point but a pedantic matter I just can't help exploring -- that's not what WP:BEANS is actually about, though it is very frequently mis-cited in a similar manner. WP:BEANs is about not telling people not to do things that they wouldn't have thought about doing on their own. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Bean fully rejected. Newyorkbrad 16:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for intervening at Cool (song). It's admins like you who make Wikipedia a disruption-free place and renew my faith in the whole policies/guidelines/dispute resolution "system". I'm sorry for all the fuss this has caused. Extraordinary Machine 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a better idea, could I suggest we just dump and divert all dealings on this subject to User:Charles Matthews who had so much good and wise advice on how I should have dealt with the problem. Then we may all learn from example Giano | talk 16:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Shh. Let sleeping dogs lie. Extraordinary Machine, you're welcome. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your feed back
I appreciate your feed back www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 17:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Flagging my anon edits as by me?
Bunchofgrapes, I forgot to login before my last edit to Belton House ("re-wiki British..."). Is there any way I can mark that edit as by me? Thanks very much! Cxw 20:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. You could make a null edit (just add a space somewhere) and mention that it was you in your edit summary, though. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul has already reverted it. I can't say I see much point in the linking you've inserted several times, either. Please see Make only links relevant to the context. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC). PS, sorry, my mistake, I see Raul actually reverted the next edit along. But my point about context stands. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Mace
I found my mace. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC).


 * I don't quite see how the thin, bright red lace-like covering over the shell of the seed of the Myristica fragrans can help here, but I'm happy for you. Are you baking? Who are you baking? Do you need cloves? Cloven hooves? (yes I'm semi-back now) KillerChihuahua?!? 11:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Arf arf, KC, it's very good to have you back. I just bean 'em in the noggin with a whole nutmeg myself. Bish, you should have just let that clever and handsome User:Seventeenth do the talking. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Everybody's clever and handsome on the Intarweb. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Everybody may be handsome, except for those crazy enough to post photos, but I'm not seeing everyone being clever. I have redacted a bit of your post just in case there is anybody around who is just that not clever. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

FAC failed
Hiya. I noticed in looking back at a couple of pages that had been on FAC, star and Vancouver, that you had placed the failed notice after only five or six days. Star was surprising because User:RJHall was very obviously willing to continue working. Is it no longer two weeks? What's the criteria for deciding it's failed? Marskell 18:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Bunchofgrapes doesn't fail articles; just puts the template there - User:Raul654 does :). RN 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I had guessed as much, but Raul rarely replies when I post on his talk (*sob*) so I thought BoG might know the score. I find it very sketchy looking at it after a while--some closed after five days and others up five weeks. Marskell 18:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it takes some getting used to - after awhile you might see it as pretty accurate. Anyway, you can ask him to extend it a few days - he almost always does... RN 18:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Leaving them up about five days if they haven't gathered much support is about the norm now; it's continually creeping down as traffic on FAC creeps up. Vancouver looks like a solid close; I'd be pretty surprised if he wouldn't give Star more time if asked. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "If they haven't gathered much support...". I hope that doesn't literally mean the word "support" has been placed in bold. Star had support in that it had a contributor working on it and a reviewer criticizing. Marskell 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it shouldn't mean that, but imagine youself plowing through the decision-making process on 30 or so FACs week after week and picture how fatigue might occassionally let one slip by. Would you like me to go ask Raul to relist it? I don't think I actually have any more sway there than you. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No insult intended! I agree with you about workload--but that shouldn't be your problem (or Raul's or anybody's, ideally). I plow through the featured article reviews every day (which, is maybe 10 to 20% the workload) and the principle consideration is "is somebody working on this—is there a willing contributor at this moment?". If there is, no close. I wasn't meaning to denigrate your work at all. I just wonder if we could be less hasty and have more people working. Here Raul removes 21 at once. Unless Raul is not actually a human being, there isn't a chance he looked at all of these closely. Frankly, I think this is bad for a process as important as FAC. Marskell 21:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It might not be scaling well. Nothing does. If Raul starting promoting a lot of articles that a lot of people disagreed with, I'd worry; as long as errors are on the early-delisting side, I'm not too concerned, since trying again a couple of weeks from now is no big deal, whereas once FAC'd, the de facto waiting time before you can realistically FARC is, what, six months or something? Also, unlike FARC, FAC is explicitly not so much supposed to be an article-improvement drive -- ideally the articles are brought up as a candidate already in tip-top shape. So the thing about there being a "willing contributor" doesn't apply as strongly.  &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * De facto waiting time is three months (not that people wiki-lawyer about it). Anyhow, if you are hasty with one, you are hasty with the other. See here and here just a few months later. This article should not have been promoted (at least in 2006). Not only was it incredibly underweight, but it went to the main page with obvious errors based on later additions. Now, easy to pull one out of a hundred...but if you pull out one, you're uncertain about the rest.


 * And I am. I don't know--I just don't feel they're actually being looked at closely when 21 can be removed at once. Raul rarely even edit summaries when removing (promoting or removing?--I don't know, because he doesn't say). If it were, as you suggest, simply cruft being removed the page, I would agree it's not worrisome, but I don't have confidence it always is. Marskell 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm. My last comment shows a tendency I dislike: if one problem is found nothing is working. Sorry. You're right FAC should not be treated as an article improvement period. Perhaps we just need a sentence stating that in the instructions. Marskell 09:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The star article did have one support vote and one object vote. In this case I think it was probably fair that the FAC failed; the issues raised in the objection are being addressed and we can bring it through again. But my concern would be that if it's only there for five days, not enough people have a chance to look over an article and comment. &mdash; RJH (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreal Engine
I noted in the talk page a few days ago that I was starting to lean towards an AfD. At the time, I was hoping that there'd end up being a consensus of sorts that, yes, the edits made are necessary to avoid copyvio and RS issues, but three separate users and/or IP address ranges have now reverted blindly back, including totally useless bits that appear to be there just to exactly copy the unrealwiki page (somewhat ironic in light of the copyvio issue), at which point I could continue to whittle down the article.

However, the end result would be a tiny, tiny stub - it essentially has no sources barring those wikis (for example, there's some information about UE2-based games on a non-Wiki, official Unreal age), and dealing with an AfD vote rather than an edit war of attrition seems more tractable. As such, an AfD is looking ever more atttractive. Thoughts? Nysin 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If there are really no verifiable reliable sources on the topic, sure, an AfD is more than appropriate. In the meantime I have asked for some third-party admin help (blocking and/or protection, whatever they may think best) to deal with the edit war. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I protected, if you want to go for an Afd it would be lovely, but with three or more people adding content it may end up right back where it is now. Try clue-whacking for a bit, see if they can read policy pages eh? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've gotten User:Nysin/UE_Draft into a state where I think it's reasonable to unprotect the page so I can swap it in. The Unrealwiki people seem to have disappeared as soon as KillerChihuahua protected the page, or have for some other reason remained silent to my repeated questions there, and I think I've excised the worst of the NOR and copyvio. Thus, I'm requesting page unprotection. Nysin 21:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

ok
ok understandable. but i shall be vindicated. Thanks hun.Courtney Akins 02:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't call me hun, please. Just join the conversation on Talk:Early conceptions of the Channel Tunnel and bring your sources. Thank you. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

i listed the sources on the article tahnks.Courtney Akins 02:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * People have more questions. Like which source the Jane Austen info is from and how a plan in the 1830s could have involved King's Cross Station, built in 1851. Go over there and help out. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

there are several king's crosses. Plus, it's in her books. haven't you read them? I'd love to talk more, but I gotta run. Good night.Courtney Akins 03:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi hun
Any good? Why I didn't do an indef I don't know. Someone will, I guess. Wait, what am I saying? A sweet girl like that? They'll be run out of town if they do. Bishonen | talk 03:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Yeah, it was good, but you forgot to invite her to reflect :-) Interesting evening I'm having here all-around. Getting trolled from one side and being told in no uncertain terms I'm trolling from another. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw your vile slurs. Courtney's block is being wheel warred! But unintentionally, I think. Well, I did invite her to e-mail me about themes in Jane Austren's novels, won't that do? I'd be quite prepared to shorten the block if, against all expectation, she does have something, anything, to say about the invasion-related paranoia (O RLY?) in them, you know. If I don't hear from her, I guess it's AFD for the article. Bishonen | talk 04:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC).
 * I just trimmed it down to sourced stuff. Basically one para now. If that sticks, probably just merging that into the precursors section at Channel Tunnel is the way to go. Now what's this about a wheel war? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I thought, it was accidental, people tripping over each other and themselves to be the first to re-block. Current status: Blngguyen is wheel warring with himself. Bishonen | talk 04:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Yup. deadmin him! &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Arfenhouse deletion?
Although many people opted for deletion on the grounds of failing WP:WEB, there are a few things that are overlooked. Arfenhouse has recieved its share of awards from Newgrounds, and also earned a category of its own. Arfenhouse has been hosted by a diverse number of mirror sites, including MilkAndCookies, CosmicCollapse, AlbinoBlackSheep, and of course Newgrounds.

As for its lack of fame, that could be accounted for in that the author himself tried to bring down its popularity, and had not made a proper sequel since the second movie. Arfenhouse 6 reached the #1 spot on the Newgrounds portal entries (and subsequently recieved an award for doing so) a week after its release.

The games have recieved awards from the community responsible for the engine used to make it, most notably Arfenhouse 3.

Lastly, this article had no other infractions against it, and was informative and well written. Upon investigation, it does meet at least one of the standards outlined in the WP:WEB. I believe this article should be restored.
 * Please take it to WP:DRV. I personally thought the article was atrociously written in addition to being basically unsourced, to be honest, but if you open up a deletion review -- and bring your sources and citations -- others can and will weigh in. Emphasize that you have new information not presented in the original AfD, and provide links or references to Reliable Sources discussing the topic. If there aren't secondary sources discussing it, then Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Is it me, or have half of the admins gone stark raving bonkers? Criticism is disruption; stubs on real places should be deleted because they were created out of process; policy proposals being worked up in user space should not have templates on them saying that they are policy proposals. When will these people get a grip and write something encyclopedic?

For my own blood-pressure, I think I had better stop reading it. -- ALoan (Talk) 06:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocks get bumped to indef because "He wasn't using the blocking time for what I intended"? I dunno. Bad mojo. The stubs on real places getting deleted is a little subtler than it looks maybe. The policy proposal one is a witchhunt. Then you! Back and the first thing you do is get into a Sidaway Kerfuffle! Well! &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no way of evaluating whether admins are going more bonkers than in the past, but I'd be interested to see a graph of how many genuinely-active admins we have over time. I've seen a lot of people worry that we need to have more admins to keep up with the number of articles, users, and edits we have, but maybe we're simply seeing that having a lot of admins doesn't scale either. With that, good night. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you like my opinion on this matter? Giano | talk 14:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No! &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a rhetorical question, but fortunatly (for you) this evening I am busy with Mrs G, so it will have to wait. Giano | talk 17:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you're something of an expert in these matters
Does "one up the Gary Glitter" mean what I think it means? Bishonen | talk 12:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC).
 * The first bullet point in Gary Glitter seems to shed some light on what the heck that's supposed to mean. What a lovely fellow. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, I think I win! I'll see your outspoken 22-year old hottie and raise you one Gary Glitter! You're dead! Bishonen | talk 17:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

Ya ya ya ya ya ya
Hi. I removed your protection on this talk page following the user's promise to remain civil. I hope you don't mind. I think it was a good move under the circumstances (he was just digging himself deeper), but the original WP:BLP dispute at Talk:Vicente Fox is showing signs of clearing itself up and 'lots of Yas' has legitimate reason to comment on that and other matters while waiting out his block. I'll keep an eye on the civility issue. --CBD 22:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

IP 83.219.203.21
Yesterday I suggested to Urthogie and Quasipalm that someone ought to look over 83.219.203.21's edits. I noticed that they had warned the IP earlier, thinking about it though I think it's better if an admin (such as you) would look into it. 83.219.203.21 has been putting links to Nordic theory in articles where such links clearly doesn't belong. If you could deal with him Wikipedia would be better off in my opinion. I also suggest looking through his other low-quality contributions. Regards. --23:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 23:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For reverting vandalism to my user page. MER-C 03:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh sure; you are welcome. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you do this?
Hi. Regarding a grand scheme of mine, I was wondering if it was possible for an admin to edit an IP's monobook.js, since it says it is protected. If not, do you know if the IP can edit it? Thanks. Xiong Chiamiov   :: contact ::   21:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually don't know. I would have thought that, editable or not, the system wouldn't apply monobook.js or monobook.css to anon users, since it's not neccessarily a single account and it could be a cruel surprise to the next person to come through on that IP. Best place to ask may be Village Pump (technical). &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me...
or are whiskey's edits looking more an more familiar? Their new comments on the talk pages for anarchism and Henry David Thoreau look very familiar. Especially the stuff about the frontiers. If you could look it over again, that would be great. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 06:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

reincarnation of banned user
Unfortunately, this is about Anarchism and Thewolfstar.

According to User:Lingeron's block log and User:KingWen's block log, both accounts have been indefinitely blocked as "obvious reincarnations" of "banned user Thewolfstar," most recently on August 9, one account by Geogre and Lar and the other by Bunchofgrapes.

Lingeron always signed his or her name as "Shannon" at Talk:Anarchism, starting at Talk:Anarchism/Archive39 and lasting until Talk:Anarchism/Archive40. KingWen's only discussion post appears later on the latter page at Talk:Anarchism/Archive40.

In the opinions of many observers, User:Whiskey_Rebellion is an "obvious reincarnation" of the indefinitely blocked user Lingeron. Whiskey Rebellion first appears in discussion August 17, initiating the section Talk:Anarchism/Archive41. He or she posts frequently in that archive and on the current Talk:Anarchism page.

On Sept. 6, with User_talk:Woohookitty, Whiskey Rebellion recruited administrator Woohookitty to oversee the Anarchism pages. Woohookitty began policing Talk:Anarchism for "civility" and "NPA" on Sept. 7, at Talk:Anarchism, protecting Anarchism and notably issuing a civility warning at User_talk:69.164.74.68 for little more than somebody mentioning that Whiskey Rebellion seems to be Thewolfstar. Just pointing out the obvious 07:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * CheckUser has been requested by Woohookitty. Please add any evidence here. Bishonen | talk 09:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC).


 * So who was that throwaway account? I see Geogre reverted his copy of this message already. Is there an action item here for me? I'm thinking not, the CU request already seems well in hand. ++Lar: t/c 11:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No I'd think with an RFCU filed now, there's no call for action, unless if you'd enjoy going through WR's contribs and seeing if they appear to be TWS or Lingeron, which I know nobody would enjoy, so, in conclusion, there's no action item. This seems a little interesting. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * On account of the unusual, I added a bit on the significance of the username. Bishonen | talk 09:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Oh, good idea, I knew that but forgot it wasn't obvious. I think maybe some of Geogre's old guesses might be closer to the mark w/ this account for some reason. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious to educated Americans, I'm sure, but it's annoying to assume that everybody falls into that category. Some of us do better with Robespierre and Marx. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
 * I hear you. I didn't think it was obvious, I'd just forgotten it wasn't, if that makes any sense at all, which I suppose it doesn't :-) Mostly I'm just not up to looking into Whiskey Rebellion or the Anarchy page right now. All praise to WooHooKitty for going there. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's over (for now). Whiskey Reb has been indef blocked. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 05:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fried spider
I was just beginning to think that every verifiable occurance of nauseating food (nauseating in the common western standard, that is) has been documented in wikipedia and voila... This thing came to my eyes, I, being brave as usual, started the page. It is just a stub now, because I found it difficult to get any decent source of information on this topic. And if you search the net you have to swim through overwhelming amount of lovely pictures of fried spiders. Any help will be appreciated! :-D --BorgQueen 17:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was one quick trip to Unusual articles too! Sounds completely nauseating. Good work. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3
Holy hell; if a spider is large enough that frying him will yield something that one might actually eat, he's likely a spider with whom I don't care to become acquainted.

In any case, I came hither to note that I, to be sure, agree with the spirit of your comments at the RfA talk page and am quite glad that there are users such as Friday and you who express disagreement with Tony, in order that he might not cursorily dismiss his interlocutors as trolls uninterested in the project qua encyclopedia or less-than-conversant with how things ought to work (much of the time, such ascriptions are not inaccurate, but Tony, IMHO, metes them out a bit too summarily).

You drove me rather nuts, though, by your replying to PPGMD; having not read some of the discussion supra, I sat for a good long time trying to figure out what strange Internet slang PPGMD might be. That my fantasy football teams were deprived of my awesome general managing for those ten minutes is profoundly troubling, and I imagine this to be a situation in which Category:Administrators open to recall entails... :) Joe 03:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here we see a desperate attempt to pander to you to prevent that. You must read the spider article if you have not; or shall I summarize?: crushed garlic is fried in oil until fragrant, then the spiders are added and fried alongside the garlic until "the legs are almost completely stiff, by which time the contents of the abdomen are not so runny." As for Tony Sidaway I... I... I shall completely refrain from comment at this time. (Twasn't easy though.) &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me tell you, control-W has been fighting control-S for a while now... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I give! What does that mean? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How does one save a reply; how does one close a window/tab. To pour petrol, or to bite ones tongue? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah! If one is me, one clicks little buttons onscreen :-) But yes I certainly know what you mean now. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Thanks. :) It's coming soon, I promise! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Shadow Kune Do
Bunchofgrapes, what's the deal with the page Shadow Kune Do, clearly this page is a self promotion from a fictional martial art that a young person has put togehter for noteriety. I have been in martial arts for 35 years and after reading this page it is so utterly ridiculous I can't even believe anyone would even consider leaving it there. I would have thought that the page could be deleted based on Article 7 of speedy deletion. I am a heavy contributor to Jeet Kune Do and the article in question is seriously promoting itself the equal of the late Bruce Lees liftime work. Please reconsider removing this ASAP. FrankWilliams 07:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa, I think you are right. I've retagged it as a speedy and we'll see if another admin agrees. Sorry about that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate your quick response. FrankWilliams 23:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

FAC of West Bengal
It may be a bit premature to close that FAC. The fac nom was placed by someone who wasn't a regular editor (wasn't noticed by most editors until a few days ago). I have voted "oppose" but was working with another editor in finding out the gaps and mistakes. The other oppose votes are not hard opposes, and work was going on to fix them. So, I request you to reconsider the close of the article, and re-list it as the discussion is still ongoing. Thanks. --Ragib 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've forwarded your message to User:Raul654, who is the actual promoter/failer. (I'm just the guy who tags the facfailed's after he decides). &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Unico's back at it again
Another revert from User:Unico master 15 to Unreal Engine technology. He's starting to get on my nerves a little. I reverted the article's content. Torinir  ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 07:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And could you offer an opinion on the image I found? (On the article talk page) Thanks much. :) Torinir  ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 08:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I found he wasn't just editing Unreal Engine technology. Found a small edit in Unreal Tournament putting his OR of a 1.5 version of UE in the game's infobox. I think that there's likely to be more of that in many game related articles. Torinir  ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 07:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh man, I did a search for "Unreal Engine 1.5" and it's a lot more widespread than I thought. I found five other articles that had the reference to this non-existant version of UE. I'm still working on finding any more incidents of this complex case of OR insertion. Update: 9 total articles, including Unreal Tournament were modified by either User:3d engineer or User:Unico master 15 to insert Unreal Engine 1.5 references. Torinir  ( Ding my phone  <small style="color:green;">My support calls <sub style="color:blue;">  E-Support Options  ) 07:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I did a Google search, too, and ignoring the massive amount of Wikipedia-clones containing the term, the only reliable-ish sources for the existence of UE1.5 I came across were and . Neither provides any detail on what it is, though. Nysin 12:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is strange, given that Epic themselves refers to the engine that runs Unreal Tournament as UE1. Torinir <sub style="color:red;"> ( Ding my phone  <small style="color:green;">My support calls <sub style="color:blue;">  E-Support Options  ) 17:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Clue-by-four
/Bishzilla gives the little arbcom a friendly squeeze.  Squeals of delight are heard. P.S., you have mail. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC).
 * They are so cute when they squeal. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Prediction: The ruling is ignored, with the explanation, "Ban fully rejected. I'm not Eternal Equinox, I'm Hollow Wilarding, and no one made a motion about me." Newyorkbrad 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * AGF! AGF! &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * However, note that she can unblock herself any time, see my P.S. These new blocking features are real handy. Bishonen | talk 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

Thank you
Thank you for your comment on WP:AN this afternoon. Newyorkbrad 00:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, sure, I meant it. I was just about to write you and comment on your second big post - the "comparison" one that kept getting moved hither and yon. It was very good. It actually affected my perceptions of the situation. Then I remembered something. Giano's not an admin. I'm actually on record as saying I wouldn't support Giano as an admin. Hot-tempered people are too potentially damaging with the tools. So your symmetry doesn't quite work all the way for me. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a perfect symmetry by any means. I was hoping it might lead Tony Sidaway that Giano has some virtues, and Giano to recognize that Tony has some. Didn't quite work out that way, but I tried.  I had some further comments in the thread, but after the random moves of the threads all over the place, one of them wound up on Tony's talkpage and another one on Giano's, so we'll let it go.
 * Different topic: thanks for trying to help me out with the question about extra space. When I have a change I will follow the link you sent and proceed from there. Thanks again. Newyorkbrad 01:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you also from me. You know, I am sorry I allowed myself to get carried away by Tony. I should not pay attention to him and intend not to, at least after these two disgusting charades of his creation go bust. You know, I just hate Wikipedia namespace for the ugliness of what's going on there and stick to Main. I had some terrible content conflicts but nothing gets even close to the intrigues and some silly power struggles that I observe in Wikipedia space, particularly this. I was a part of that small stock that our empowered figures disdainfully label the "fickle and ill-informed populace". However, to be down here is more comfortable then to observe what's going on up there. I am off for some WP:Tea. May I offer you in the meanwhile a glass of Port to the right? Have a good one and see you around! --Irpen 03:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jabba the Hutt
What happened to the article. I hit the link and all I get is your bio. thanks.pwschultzk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.73.78 (talk • contribs) 14:48, September 15, 2006
 * Uh? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe a glitch. I've got to see this. Martial Law 19:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Article came up fine. May have been vandalisim, or a glitch. Martial Law 19:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dream about Wikipedia, you
Had a really weird dream about Wikipedia. In it, I was abducted by a UFO, where I saw The Boss (Jimbo Wales) of Wikimedia on the ship. He was setting up Wikimedia Galactica. I got assigned to Wikipedia AS the TOP boss, with my favorite Admins assigned under me. All of the male wikipedians were placed under the female wikipedians, with my favorite admins assigned over them, and I assigned over them, as the BOSS myself. Man, what a dream. What do you think of this weird dream ? Do all wikipedians have dreams of this nature ? Martial Law 20:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Newyorkbrad 22:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Me neither. -- Samir धर्म 12:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Irony
If you want a very different perspective on things, please check out Support vote/comment #60 (Williamborg's) at Thatcher131's RfA. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm scratching my head so hard it bleeds. Well, certainly TS's comment in the referred-to thread were reasonable enough, but the hagiography is insane. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Medieval cuisine
I noticed that you've been working with a lot of FAs on food-related topics, and I thought you might be interested in checking out the article I'm working on right now. There's still much to describe, but comments and perhaps even corrections and additions would be most welcomed.

Peter Isotalo 13:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User HW/EE/Velten/...
You may not have your own page watchlisted, so if you haven't seen it, check the history from yesterday in which User:Velten twice added, and twice deleted, the announcement that she would no longer be editing. Not sure what action, if any, is warranted at this point. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please comment on recent events on my talk page
Hi BoG. I'm leaving for awhile to protest recent events. Please share your thoughts on my talk page. Thanks Paul August &#9742; 17:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Butter
Hi there! Just trying to get back to you about my edit to butter. The first time I read the article, "Everyday food" sounded as if it was consumed as a staple, say, like bread or potatoes. "Consumed daily" reminded me of medication, which is taken regularly in small quantities, and often accompany meals. The imagery that this new phrase invoked seemed more appropriate at the time, but now that I look at it again, it could be better still. Let me mull on it a bit longer. --HappyCamper 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:NCI_butter.jpg|right|thumbnail|100px|Butter - an "everyday food consumed daily". This one's on [[User:HappyCamper|HC]]! ]]


 * Let's just say that Good Things don't go unnoticed on Wikipedia! :-) Thanks very much, and all the best to you! --HappyCamper 03:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Homework
Hey. I'm not exactly "back" just yet. As for Axiomm, I'm quite surprised that I missed that account. I don't think there's any reason for me to name it as it's beyond obvious. BTW, I haven't been ignoring you. It's just that I didn't think you needed my opinion regarding the sockpuppet cat; you seem to have everything under control. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks! Adding the barnstar to my user page now. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)