User talk:Bunchofgrapes/Archive 14

Are you asking if we should have an article on this book? No, we shouldn't. In fact, this book consists of -- like most Reader's Digest publications -- condensed versions of other books and articles. If you were going to use the information in the book as a source for articles, it would be better to use the original sources, rather than the condensed versions in the book. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My ISP has been causing problems. This may explain malformed links. Its a wireless system. Four times already, techs tried to fix it, and it still acts up from time to time. Among other malfunctions, it has even kicked me literally off the 'net, and I have to wait until it is fixed. It picks up data from a satellite, then it rebroadcasts it to devices that people purchase, as if they were radio trancievers, which they are. Martial Law 06:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please stop talking about your ISP problems; that has nothing to do with the malformed links I was talking about. I was more talking about when you point people to a page and tell them to "Search for bigfoot" or things like that. If you have to tell people to do their own searches on a site, then you aren't really pointing them to a particular resource. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will comply. Martial Law 06:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

I run link by you, you approve said link, I place it, another admin blocks me. How do I avoid that ? Can this concern be stated on

You are right, I should have said something on AN; now I did. So no official ban on external links is in place; instead, you are voluntarily agreeing to run them by me as part of our mentorship rules. As far as the article about goofy laws goes, it's an interesting question. I don't think it would be a very good article, because deciding what laws are "goofy" is a little arbitrary and so tends to violate

WP:NPOV. But I'm curious: what would you name such an article? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

List of unusual laws? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm familiar with the "Loony Laws" type of books and I'm a lawyer in real life as well. Those books are good for humor but contain many inaccuracies (for example, they tend to take the odd fact pattern of a particular court case and extrapolate the result into a "law"), and I don't think they'd be a good source for an article. At most, they might give you a direction to research in using more authoritative sources (and sometimes they do cite a case or a statute at the back). Hope this is helpful. Newyorkbrad 00:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your earlier revert to Xemphim (talk · contribs). This is probably one to watch. I don't think this user has made any genuine edits, and may be related to several anon accounts that are adding spam links. -- Solipsist 09:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book is about a fictionalized account of a earthquake that is expected to hit the New Madrid area. It depicts St. Louis on fire on the title page and cover, in this, the involved characters use a nuke to stop the quake, and the Kentucky governor initiates a civil war to try to stop the nuke's deployment. ISBN designation is. It is written by Peter Hernon, is a soft cover novel. Can this be placed in any appropriate articles, such as the earthquake article, the New Madrid
article ? Would it rate a article of its own ?

The fictionalized account is based on the actual quakes that hit the area in the early 19th century. If a quake of that sort were to hit the U.S. it is expected that the disaster will destroy the US due to the industrial concentration, nuke plants, supply disruptions. Martial Law 23:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you are asking two questions. First: "Can this be placed in any appropriate articles, such as the earthquake article, the New Madrid article?" No. Fiction is not useful as either a source or an external link for real-world events. Second: "Would it rate a article of its own?" Probably not... because what makes this book more notable than hundreds of thousands of other books? Was it a best-seller? Can you find secondary sources that talk about the influence the book has had on society or culture? Those are the sorts of questions to ask yourself.

Also, I have "refactored" your two paragraphs above. If you ask someone something on a talk page, and you shortly think of something you want to add, it is considered ok to go ahead and edit your original question, rather than "replying to yourself", as you have been doing. This is especially true if nobody else has responded to you yet.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to place this under "In Fiction" in the appropriate articles. Martial Law 17:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you think about how very many pieces of fiction, both book and film, feature or even center around earthquakes, maybe you can see why throwing in a fairly obscure novel wouldn't be a benefit to the article?

Can a device similar to my "Mood Meter" be set up, so that I, anyone else can know at a glance how they're progressing under mentorship, etc. ? - only that the mentor(s) can change it, not the person being mentored can change it ? Martial Law 17:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, *I* wouldn't use it.

The progress meter is to be similar to the report cards we got while we were in school, A+ to -F. Is this a good idea ? Martial Law 17:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. But I'm not going to sit around grading you.

One other thing, after the mentorship period is over, how do I get "groomed" to be a Admin ? Martial Law 17:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be "groomed" to become an admin. You just need to show you understand what Wikipedia is, and make a lot of edits that actually improve it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen something about Admin Coaching on here. Will comply. Martial Law 22:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen | talk 00:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, it's loverly! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legally frivolous is up for deletion again. As you participated in the first nomination, I thought you might be interested. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, Mr. Grapes! I'm reading a huge (0ver 1000 pages) biography of David Garrick. I've just stumbled onto a marvelous description of the theatre under Garrick's reign. In checking your article, much of this information is not in the section on the second theatre. The book gives a physcial description of the theatre both inside and out (the theatre complex was really a series of 10 connected buildings), including descriptions of the library and backstage areas as well as the public areas, but also there is a fairly extensive description of what attending a play at Drury Lane would have been like (including the prices for various seats). There is also a marvelous anecdote about Samuel Johnson saying he could not go into the green room anymore as the bosomy actresses excited his "amorous propensities." I would be more than happy to incorporate this material into the article. I would send you the details, but it's quite a good deal (about 4 pages worth). Let me know what you think. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am a complete sucker for the physical description stuff. From a proportionality standpoint, whatever you could distill down to 2-3 paragraphs would be great; more than that might be overkill. I'm not sure if the Johnson anecdote is really a fit for the article -- it's more about Johnson and the general theatre scene than about Drury lane, perhaps? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking two paragraphs would be appropriate. I agree with you on the Johnson, though it is a fun detail. I'll get to work on them and put them here for you to add to the page. With proper citation, of course. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you already feel free, but just in case, please do feel free to add them to the page yourself. I am a slow and slovenly editor at best myself lately. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just added the new paragraphs. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm floating around this proposal I've written for a new CSD regarding unsourced articles:

Hi, there's a current unblock request on User talk:80.90.52.35, which seems to be triggered by this old block of yours:

16:01, 2 October 2006 Bunchofgrapes (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "80.90.32.0/19 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 months (Long-term, quite abusive vandal)

I recognise this was apparently a rather serious case. Could you check if you think it would be safe to unblock that range? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the trouble user would return, but I agree we should unblock when collateral damage becomes a problem. I am pretty sure I would have placed this block as "anon-only, allow new account creation", however -- perhaps you could ask the anon if they might be willing to create an account? Either way is OK with me though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bunchofgrapes. I see that you helped put Serial Experiments Lain in the FAC, as well as Gloucester County, Virginia, both of which were "orphaned". Could you please point out what I did wrong in putting it up? I didn't really get it. Thanks for the help anyway!--SidiLemine 12:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't transclude the nomination pages in

WP:FAC. It's also possible that you did this, and somebody removed it quickly for some reason. In any case, if it's not transcluded on that page, nobody's going to see it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

That's right, I totally skipped step 7. No idea why whatsoever. Thanks again for the help.--SidiLemine 15:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And he's once again playing with version numbers, and keeps referencing that non-existant UE1.5 build on

I left a new, even-grumpier message on his page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you? Bishonen | talk 01:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Probably doing arcane rituals to raise poultry from their rest, being spurred on to such nefarious deeds by their malevolent friends. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tricky part is that all such voodoo rituals involve waving a dead chicken, and if you aren't careful, you bring the wrong one to life and have to start all over. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bunchofgrapes, it looks your range block of 80.90.32.0/19 on 16:01, October 2, 2006 with an expiry time of 3 months (Long-term, quite abusive vandal) has caught its first likely innocent user, Fabs1 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) who's now requesting an unblock. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've now unblocked the range due to several reports of collateral damage. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that brought a wave of relief -PHEW- Keep up the good fight!

In recognition of your ground-breaking abductee-mentoring work, I hereby solemnly award you the The Self-Abducting Barnstar. Bishonen | talk 13:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Very rarely does one so very deserving receive such a very appropriate and such a very finely-crafted award! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bunchofgrapes ,

Could you please have a look at this please. Bishonen said that "Geogre, Bunch, and Newyorkbrad, I strongly suggest that this conflict would benefit from your input" but I don't know if it meant that I should post it on your talk page or not :) Anyways, Thanks , --Aminz 04:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Aminz, I honestly don't have the time or energy to do so. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch, I went to range block the vandal here, but... well, you see those IPs. I'm only a 0/24 trick pony, I don't know what to do when they're all over the place like that (yet are obviously the same). Do you? If not, let's one of us just sprotect for a while. The article doesn't exactly look to be closely watched—see how there's a more than half-hour gap before my revert? If I don't hear from you rather soon, I'll just sprotect it myself. Bishonen | talk 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Looking... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 68.248.0.0 - 68.255.255.255 is all SBC internet, a major ISP no doubt using large dynamically-allocated IP pools. Blocking probably isn't the way to go. I'll semi. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Bishonen | talk 17:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

First link is one for the Bigfoot article. It leads to a list of reported encounters between witnesses and the creature. It is www.bigfootsightings.org. Some are pretty graphic . Martial Law 22:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me ask you, do you think that site meets the criteria discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it appears to. I've examined it myself, regarding the Fouke Incident. Martial Law 00:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is no. It is a self-published blog-like website. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Bigfoot Encounters' website a good one ? This one takes the reader to the originating sources, in the case of the Fouke Monster, it takes them to articles that were in the Arkansas Democrat/Gazette and the Texarkana Gazette. Martial Law 00:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really do appreciate your patience, assisstance. Martial Law 00:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That site is more of a aggregator of content, some of it OK (like the newspaper articles) and some of it not (like the self-reported encounter stories). In general, there would be no need to link to bigfootencounters.com itself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got two of these. They are www.rense.com/general74/two.htm, which leads to the originating website. It discribes a ghoul-like creature that is in Native American lore.

The other is this: SUVs on Jupiter. This is from Alex Jones's website, saying that the sun is responsible for global warming, and has cited several links, incl. the Space.com website. Can these be placed in the appropriate articles ? Martial Law 00:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rense link leads to this one:www.huntfortheskinwalker.com Martial Law 00:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Skinwalker website is a bad one, NO access is possible with it. Martial Law 00:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just corrected it, will try to access this site. Martial Law 00:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen it. Its what happened on the NIDs "Ranch". I hope it is reliable. Are these good for the appropriate articles ? I do appreciate your patience. Martial Law 00:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One question at a time, please. Now which possible source would you like an opinion on? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. Martial Law 07:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Native American told me about the creature long ago. Martial Law 07:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pick one please, and I'll look at it. I suspect they are all unreliable, but haven't taken a close look. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the SUVs on Jupiter link please. Martial Law 03:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts in helping Martial Law, I, Chacor, award you, Bunchofgrapes, with the Working Man's Barnstar.

– Chacor 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the three wording issues; only one of them was intentional (I thought that the "wind dropping" meant that the wind began gusting; perhaps a slight reword there is called for clarification), whereas the other two I failed to fully reword due to wireless issues forcing me to save in haste. Please don't act so aggressively though; accidents happen, and I felt a little shakened that someone like you would act so aggressively. — Deckiller 04:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "the wind dropping" was a widely-known phrase; I still do. That was the only edit I had a problem with, as you entirely reversed the meaning, something I refuse to be cheerful about. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I completely misread the statement and didn't put it into perspective. Perhaps you can add "wind speed" in there? Sorry about this. — Deckiller 05:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it's also a sock of an indef blocked user. --

Hey now, he who buses in the vote can only expect some stragglers in the back rows. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who should not matter. The MfD isn't supposed to be a popularity contest. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well. There's room for some nuance. If a highly productive and terrific editor has a fun little unencyclopedic user-space page they use to blow off steam, we'd be smart to give a lot more consideration to keeping it than if a similar page belonged to a disruptive troll who never helped out Wikipedia at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that principle. However, I think my point is better explained by the comment I just added. This isn't about looking through some user's subpages to find stuff to delete...it's all referenced as part of the project I was nominating for deletion. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Perhaps you noticed I agreed with you in this case, much to the trepidation of a very nervous Tokyo. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was swayed by the arguments some have made and changed my mind: I now say delete the project page and keep the user pages, if the users really want them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bunchofgrapes,

Could you take a look at the Ohio Wesleyan University article and let me know how you think the article could be improved? Thank you!!! WikiprojectOWU 08:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid hits Tunguska and Russian says UFO explosion caused the Tunguska Incident. I was going to place these in that article. Running them by you first. Google is full of Tunguska related articles. Really appreciate your assisstance. Martial Law 05:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more link:

World Mysteries website claim Martial Law 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Law, take a break from this page, please

Before you post requests for source evaluations on users who haven't responded for several days, may I suggest you click on the link "User contributions" in the left-hand sidebar, Martial Law? That'll show you how long it is since the user last edited. For instance, Bunchofgrapes hasn't been around for several days, he's obviously on a break. Please wait for him to return and reply about SUVs on Jupiter or something before you add any more questions. Supposing he's sick or something? Encountering a whole pile of UFO sources from you might send him into a nervous decline. You'd better ask someone else (not me, it's not the kind of thing I do) or just wait till he gets back. Please. Bishonen | talk 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oh Dear, I did not know he was ill/ on break. Will comply. Martial Law 06:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC

I was asking about the Tunguska Incident, in which something had exploded there long ago, and was planning to add some links, but had to run them by him first, persuant to my mentorship. Can a back-up mentor be asked to run these links ? This is why I had requested back-up mentors. Again, Will comply. Martial Law 06:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have two mentors, Martial Law. The other one is User:Armedblowfish. (He's all over your talkpage.) I'm afraid he hasn't edited since 20 November, so he seems to be on wikibreak too. Sorry, but that's how it goes with with volunteers. The community has done the best it can, two mentors is actually more than most people get. I'm sorry they're on break simultaneously, it's bad luck, but these things happen. You'll just have to take a break with the adding of external links to articles until one of your mentors comes back. Do something else. And please just leave Bunchofgrapes alone. Put this page on your watchlist so you'll see when he returns. Don't post here before he does. I'm serious. This is the second time of asking. Bishonen | talk 04:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

A spoiler warning on The Knight of the Burning Pestle? Aside from its being a classic-aged text, it's also sort of not the point of the play (the plot, I mean). I was having a fit just trying to keep the plot straight in my mind, and I had just finished reading the play. It's like the plot of Ulysses: that's not what it's there for. Crowbait 17:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are just some people who think any and every discussion of plot needs a spoiler warning. Then there are some that think none do. I'm closer to the latter than the former, but mostly I recognize the need to, as in most everything on Wikipedia, not try to apply global standards. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like the

Three Little Pigs - now, that needed a spoiler warning. BTW, nice of you to drop by, BoG. Happy New Year and all that. :) KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Sheesh! You just spoiled what happens at the end of December for me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happens? I don't know anything according to everyone because I don't know everyone and therefore I'm not anyone. BTW, nice picture of my talk page up there, Bunch. "This is what happens when you talk about IRC." Geogre 22:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have it on very good authority that IRC is great and the problem is with everything else. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another food-related article has been created. You are welcome to have a look. --BorgQueen 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting; I especially like the bit about the fork. Maybe one of the illustrations from http://www.clements.umich.edu/culinary/books.html could enhance it? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it is hilarious that they claim the copyright on a two-dimensional copy of a Medieval book. Can we use the picture anyway? --BorgQueen 01:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can, Bridgeman v Corel trumps spurious copyright claims like that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just letting you know that Serial Experiments Lain is up at FAC again. I thought I'd let you know as you helped it get in the right place last time. Happy holydays!--SidiLemine 12:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would like you to explain why you don't want this person to edit wikipedia. What has he done to you? Why do you insist on preventing him from editing? Maybe if you explained to both us what exactly he's done wrong to get himself in this situation and what he can do to resolve it, perhaps we can end this so that he can stop bugging you. BB12.30.2006 00:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EddieSegoura used an enormous number of sockpuppet accounts in a massive campaign to insert references to the made-up term "exicornt", not only on en.wiki, but across multiple other wikimedia sites as well. It's not up to me. Only the community as a whole, ArbCom, or Jimbo could possibly undo this vandal's ban. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch, do you get the feeling it's Eddie himself who asked the question? Check contribs. – Chacor 02:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I got that feeling all right, but lacking further evidence (unless if I'm missing some now-deleted contribs?) and not wanting to give anybody the impression that it's not all right to ask about certain topics, I'm not going to act. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your always excellent works in 2007. --BorgQueen 22:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BQ! And a very happy new year's to you too. It's already 2007 for you, isn't it? You're so lucky to live in the future! Here's to everyone (most especially me) arguing less and writing more in 2007. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is already 2007 here... You can live in the future like me if you relocate to Asia. Australia is not too bad, too. --BorgQueen 23:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sonofabitch stew, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

--BorgQueen 15:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy that was quick :-) Thanks for nominating it. (Now I tremble to go see what's happened to it thus far.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Nothing! (!?) The vandals must be sleeping off their hangovers... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message left on my talk page. My requests to sign the e-petition are addressed uniquely to "British Wikipedians" since only British citizens are eligible to sign. The petition is not spam and is not political – as you can see for yourself here. I hope your fears have now been allayed.PJHaseldine 18:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now see further comment on my talk page.PJHaseldine 19:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another posting on the talk page.PJHaseldine 21:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on the bra size. I can't see how it could ever be relevant to Wikipedia. As far as her marriage goes, there *is* a Paul Ulrich who is a sculptor in San Fransisco, which would mesh quite nicely with her occupation and location, but I have been unable (so far) to find any other reports that they are married, nor any that show Mr Ulrich is particularly notable (except via the alleged marriage). That the claim has been reappearing and disappearing every once in a while (with the exact same wording) suggests that no verification exists, and possibly that it's simple vandalism. I wonder whether a search of California wedding licenses would yield something useful, and not considered original research? Going to those lengths seems a little bit stalkerish, though, and that makes me uncomfortable, especially given that of the Mythbusters with MySpace pages, she has the only one that's completely friends-locked. —The preceding

Hmmm. OK, If you've tried to find the info and haven't, it should be yanked. Which I have done. You should check out

WP:BLP, which details some pretty strong criteria for articles about living people. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I haven't tried exhaustively, which is why I added the {{fact}} instead of deleting it as WP:BLP. I'm not sure I have the time to do more than a quick bit of Googling today, but if this assertion gets re-added yet again, I'll try to find something concrete out about it. Paul.w.bennett 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:Bunckofgrepes you? Because that user certainly seems as if he is pretending to be you. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. He's a persistent banned user. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! And now he's gone. Oh goody! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bunchofgrapes,

I replied on your talk page. I admit I was hoping to avoid giving Eddie more data on what to avoid doing, by not listing the specific evidence, but since you asked... I also copied to same information to

User talk:The Blue Lion. Of course, if you or any admin isn't convinced by the evidence, by all means unblock. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Sigh. He still on AOL? Any way we can contact his ISP if he continues? – Chacor 16:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last IP I saw sure was him was a Roadrunner ISP. There's a WP:RFCU#Exicornt_vandals to find out what else he's using, but he's been good at hopping around. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your buddy came back as The Blue Lion (2) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He tried creating a request for arbitration for you. I've blocked it indefinitely as a returning sock. Metros232 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You should let him know he can email the ArbCom. I guess it says that on WP:RFAR? (I hope.) As an aside, I've asked another editor who's all too familiar with Eddie to double-check my evidence. The last thing I want is to block an innocent. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the edits, I think it's safe to assume that the person using The Blue Lion account is Eddie. —Viriditas | Talk 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right - and quick on the reply! Shall I delete my entry on the talk page or leave it for others?

I guess in retrospect, the rule is necessary although I think it's poorly worded. "A Rook promoted from a pawn does not qualify for castling" would be more clear IMO, but it sounds like this rule is a quote from a governing chess body, so I'll swallow my advice (and edit) and go quietly back into the night. ~~ The castling guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.169.218.182 (talk • contribs)

Sorry about what I just did to your userpage XD. Redux formatted

]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Blue Lion . For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by contact the Mediation Committee directly .

This message delivered: 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC).