I feel honored to have been banned by Smallbones and Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales from the co-founder’s talk page for raising issues to do with Kazakhstan, the UAE, China, and Wales. It might amuse you to check out some relevant history at Wales's talk page [1] ("Kazakhstan Firewall" section et seq.), [2] (“Some may find this interesting” section), [3] (“Congratulations” section); also at mine [4],[5]; and also at WP:AN/I [6] ("Personal attack in user space") and WP:BLP/N [7] ("Jimmy Wales").
“If you seek the removal of freedoms from an opponent simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed a line to stand alongside tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justifications.” — JK Rowling (who says more interesting things than she writes, IMO)
* * * If I opened a new topic on your talk page, please reply there * * *
'Anything posted here by pompous prats who shout at other users like this or LIKE THIS on talk pages or edit summaries will be summarily deleted. And if you are in the habit of wheedling, stonewalling, editing tendentiously, and misrepresenting policies and other users' comments to further your agendas of whitewashing, POV-pushing, and self-aggrandisement, go away.
'This is a spam-free zone. Don't deliver any here. I reserve the right to be extremely abusive—and even to use four-letter words, e.g. "drat"and "toe rag"—towards anyone who does.
This user is innumerate.
I welcome your comments and updates—for the vast majority of editors I have an open door policy.
In the words of one of Wikipedia's co-founders, Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales:
"I do not consider alerting me to any topic to be canvassing."
"My understanding of feminism is that it requires the cooperation of males and females to ensure that both
sexes have equal rights and equal opportunities, it's not a war between the sexes."
—Borrowed from editor Gandydancer
This editor has joined the opposition to the targeting of editors by the politically-correct and ideology-driven so that we can keep this the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just the one that only those who haven't yet done something unacceptable to the easily-offended can edit. Don't let the octopus of the easily-offended bring down the entire project! —Also borrowed from editor Gandydancer
I am a proud member of what the hilariously named user Rationalobserver terms “the EC Fan Club, who have so thoroughly frightened everyone, including most admins, into submission they are in themselves a more pressing issue than EC.” Wikipedia has over 26 million users, including administrators, and I am grateful to RO for letting it be known that I have thoroughly frightened every one of them into submission.
Beguiled by the terrible incantations and your ambiguous undulations in the grip of eccentric propositions and distant miseries from afar, I beseech you to reconsider...Anonomous
Disraeli's dead? He hasn't been answering my letters so I thought he was on strike. Interesting coinkidink: my fourth wife's name was Lysistrata. Boy, did she know how to get her own way.Writegeist (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page clocked up a massive total of 19 views on September 27 and 28. An awesome level of interest, particularly in a living person, as I think you'll agree—the number is so high that not even the prodigious Stephen Hawking has enough fingers to calculate it. Yet it was exceeded by the gargantuan total of 21 at my user page on September 28. This easily tops the number of people (12) who paid their respects to the body of well-known dead person Vladimir Lenin (famous quote: "A lie told often enough becomes truth") between 10:15 a.m. and 10:16 a.m. on September 28 1970—the same day, incidentally, that Gamal Abdel Nasser (famous quote: "When I met Lenin I was struck by his remarkable, almost eerie, stillness") became another well-known dead person. Anyway I was immensely flattered by the attention, natch; particularly when Twitter lit up and the TV news led with the story of my sudden celebrity. Later when I recovered my composure—not that I had been decomposing, you understand—I began to wonder why the sudden surge in interest? And who exactly were these new fans? Then Lysistrata told me: zombies. Which would account for the lingering smell. Writegeist (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! And accounts for the stray appendages littering your front yard. At first, I thought you had left one of the promised refrigerated mouse morsels, but then realized that the morsel was a digit finger. It had most likely been waved/wagged too vigorously in your direction by a visiting zombie and had fallen off. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Police are combing the neighborhood for zombies with fingers missing (some index, some middle). Neighborhood is large, police-issue combs are small (budget cutbacks). Don't hold your breath. Writegeist (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Police are looking for this man, now believed to be missing the nose According to a document released to me by a friendly NSA contractor currently on vacation in Russia, visits to my user page spiked at 34 (the truly monstrous size of this number becomes apparent when you consider it's also the distance in miles to the outer reaches of the known universe) on September 10. Yours shot up to 19 on the same day. A contemporaneous report by an NSA analyst conjectured that a September 10 comment I posted to your talk page and deleted a few minutes later may have piqued the interest of a nosey parker who then made repeated intrusions. Which would explain the very large nose I found in the Acme Trap-a-Schnozz nose trap ($4.99 from Walmart, dependable, washable, reusable, and worth every cent) in my underwear drawer when I got home. I'm drying it, with a view to using it for nose art. Writegeist (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update! In an encrypted communication which I recovered from a famous dead person's crypt in [location redacted] last night, my NSA contact says surveillance of my talk page rocketed to a stupendoud total of 43* separate instances of eavesdropping in one day, specifically November 7, 2013—the day after Tim Berners-Lee reportedly described as "appalling and foolish" the decisions by GCHQ and the NSA to break the online encryption software that hundreds of millions of users rely on to protect their private data. Clearly the spooks mistook me for Mr. Berners-Lee. To be fair, this was an understandable mistake for intelligence operatives to make, as Mr. Berners-Lee invented the world-wide web and I didn't.
*Yes, 43. The immensity of this figure becomes apparent when you consider it's greater than the total number of stars in the known universe [source: Wikipedia]. Writegeist (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A user defended a condescending comment to another user with the novel argument that s/he was quoting a dead author. I think the idea that any words attributable to dead authors are wikipermissible because they have intrinsic literary merit is really rather witty. The purveyor of the gem in question promised to leave the project if this argument isn't allowed to prevail. I share the hope that it wins the day. Then we can all start condescending to each other with literary quotes of unimpeachable provenance and high merit—e.g. "You're an asshole" (from Norman Mailer's The Executioner's Song, for anyone who didn't instantly recognize it); not to mention Shakespeare's "Thou misshapen dick!" or "You are a tedious fool." Or Vonnegut's "If your brains were dynamite there wouldn’t be enough to blow your hat off." Or Hemingway's "I misjudged you. You’re not a moron. You’re only a case of arrested development.” Or... Well, you get the idea. A glorious new frontier of literary wikidiscourse!
Oh and—how could I forget?—there's Lewis Carroll's dear little Snark, of "intellect small", known for being "meager and hollow " and for its "slowness in taking a jest."
The talk page of Collect* is dignified by one of my trenchant observations. (Famous of course for trenchant observations, I tend to be the go-to resource.) Appended is an admiring comment that my wit “speaks for itself”. In all modesty I have to agree. Just as, say, the genius that's unmistakably that of Van Gogh speaks for itself in his work, so does each of my aperçus bear the hallmark of my own creative brilliance (let's not beat about the bush). People have only to read the words and they clap hands in delighted recognition: "Oh the wit! The wisdom! It's a Writegeist!" Therefore Collect recognizes it would be superfluous to credit me by name for a quote that's so obviously mine. For several months now (I've checked), my words have been given pride of place—above his own essays, even—as his “Quote of the day”. I would be flattered were I not so accustomed to public acclaim. All the same, it's nice to be appreciated. *Courtesy ping, not an invitation to tea
I sure wish that the POTUS would sit down with Speaker of the House Jim DeMint and resolve this predicament we are in. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It will come as no surprise to you that as advisers to the First Lady on all matters relating to tea-time etiquette, Lysistrata and I are invited to tea by all kinds of people. We would of course decline an invitation from Mr. DeMint. We would offer a diplomatic excuse such as "We have a previous engagement with the Capitol Earl Grey Appreciation Society" or "We are on teastrike." But you never know when you might run into the gentleman at a tea party hosted by someone else. Tips: Do say: Mr. DeMint, would you please make a long arm for the fairy cakes? Don't say: Mr. DeMint, are you a closet teabagger? Writegeist (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My kind of bamboozle! Thank you my friend. I hereby drink to your health. Any time you'd care to join me, help yourself to the comfy chair by the fire and put your feet up on Santa Claws the stuffed cat. (Given my talk page's astronomical number of visitors, there's a chance that someone with nothing better to do than to snuffle around in its darker recesses will seize on "stuffed cat" as a reference to him- or herself. Oh well. I'm a hospitable fellow. Be my guest, I say. Carpe cattum!) Writegeist (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, I wanted to thank you, Jimbo, for your concerns with paid advocacy. I think you've taken a very helpful stance. I just wanted to follow with some thoughts; I'm sure others have written all this before, but anyway:
In academic publishing, if the author of a paper has received or will receive tangible benefits from someone who has a financial interest in the subject of the paper, this conflict of interest is supposed to be noted clearly within the paper. Not to do so is academic fraud. For encyclopedias this is not even an issue: Authors of entries are always supposed to be independent of conflict of interest for the subject of their entries. This is because encyclopedias are not supposed to be position or argumentative papers, but general, neutral accounts. Conflicts of interest have always been recognized in the academic world as undermining this neutrality to such an extent that it is rigorously avoided. For example, if it was discovered that Robert Duce accepted money from the aerosol industry in order to write the entry "Aerosols" in the Springer Encyclopedia of World Climatology, he would be rightly scandalized, and his department at Texas A&M would try to remove him as best as they could. We should keep this encyclopedia at the same high standard.
Paid advocacy editors have responded that Wikipedia already has policies to keep things neutral and that their edits— or those of the responsible ones among them at least —are kept within these policies. This response is a non-starter. Every academic encyclopedia has neutrality as an editorial standard, but their editors still do not accept authors with a conflict of interest. We should not fail to learn from the best practices of the academic world.
Paid advocacy editors cannot produce even a single example where an effective paid editor has produced an overall negative impression for the firm or a client of the firm which pays this editor. Of course this is the case: If such a paid editor is going to produce a negative impression of the benefactor, then the benefactor has no interest in paying out money for such a service. Overall unbiased editing from such paid editors is a contradiction. A necessary condition for the continued practice of paying editors to produce content about oneself or one's clients is that there be a systemic bias in the production of content. Neutral editors have no effective mechanism for dealing with this biased production apart from banning it: Neutral editors are volunteers who can only act in their free time, the paid editors have as much time as their pay can afford them.
Claims that the community here is divided on whether to maintain the high standards of academic publishing are suspicious. The community is that body of neutral editors who are here to write an encyclopedia collaboratively. The editors who are paid to produce content concerning a benefactor, insofar as they take that role, are not part of this community. As such they are not here to work collaboratively, but are rather here to benefit themselves. What percentage of those who want to allow, and indeed expand the number of, encyclopedia articles written with a conflict of interest are actually part of the community, and what percentage are themselves paid editors? That is hard to answer. Instead of counting votes on what practices to take up, we should look to the academic world, which has soundly rejected conflict-of-interest writing. Thanks for reading. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Buster for bringing this to my (admittedly short-spanned) attention. A voice of reason that rather reminds me of yours. How very different from the dimwitted defenders of the bamboozlers. Writegeist (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have of course complied with this paid-to-edit administrator's request. And made the requested change for free. Writegeist (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it all got a bit silly at ANI (surprise!) and there was a funny smell so I've taken it off my watchlist. Writegeist (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The next time you feel the urge to point out the truth where it is not welcome, I suggest listening to 3 or 4 ᗅᗺᗷᗅ albums. s ```Buster Seven Talk 15:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that a certain user, one I consider a problematic editor whose contributions really needs watching by admins—his history here includes dismissive behaviour towards other users, misrepresention of others' comments, wikilawyering, false acccusation, crass name-calling (calling me a bastard! My mother would blush!), and solidly supporting (and therefore encouraging) another user who persistently showered me in really quite vile abuse—is troubled by me making good-naturedly humorous reference to any of his wiki-antics in my posts here and on my user page, even though I'm at pains to grant him total anonymity. I am loath to cause him (or any other living creature) distress. After all, for all I know, he may be a thoroughly decent, highly sensitive chap in real life, and quite unlike his wikipersona. Therefore, as I am a considerate fellow, (1) I've decided not to post any further references or allusions to his behaviour on "my" pages. I hope this will afford him relief from his agitation, and that (2) he will do me the courtesy of refraining from any further malign engagement with me. I bear him no ill will—the person behind the user name is of absolutely no interest to me, and his wikibehaviour has only ever amused me. That is all. Writegeist (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now changed my mind about (1) because my hope for (2) has been unpleasantly disappointed. On the upside: gratuitously toxic comments, devoid of wit, often provide the greatest amusement.
Hey there. First, thanks for your kind comments on my user talk page. Second, I don't know who you're referring to above but I do notice that you've been keel-hauled recently by one of the members of what I would describe as the Paid Editing Lobby. Obviously paid editing is not engaged in simply by hare-brained losers and slack-jawed corporate ninnies but is a sophisticated form of riding the Wikipedia gravy train. There are two forms of paid editors: the dummies and the smart ones. The smart ones play by the rules, and of course, notoriously, include administrators who are supposed to be living examples of best practices. But they also work the hardest and therefore are most likely to feel resentful and put-upon, and therefore most likely to want to cash in on their Wikipedia experience. That's basically what you're up against in this paid editing brouhaha, as paid editing is institutionalized, and has become a kind of moonlighting thing for the Wikipedia elite. They can be teenagers or wage slaves in real life, or pushed around by the big boss, but here they are Princes of Wikipedia, used to being kow-towed to and having their rumps kissed for all their selfless service to the Project, while of course you are a lesser being, and God forbid you should imply that they have the ethics of a lampshade. That's why you're coughing up salt water and that is why the Paid Editing Lobby is quite so strong. Hang in there. Coretheapple (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(friendly stalker)@ Writegeist. I just wanted you to know that Core is an admittedly older geezer . This may explain future lapses in memory, typing errors (probably caused by shaggy-beard droppings), that unmistakable odor of "old fartedness", etc. I bear him no ill-will. He is a quality editor with a sharp (while admittedly old) head on his shoulders. You are my best wiki-friend so I felt obligated to inform you. If, sometimes, Core doesn't respond....he's probably napping. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem with you young whipper-snappers. You don't respect age! Coretheapple (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Encounters with strangers around the 'pedia can be be quite instructive about the particles of differing perspective, passionate agenda, and idiosyncratic judgment that are floating around in the wikiatmosphere. I'll share one with you, gentle reader.
Two years and almost one month after the above user’s visit, I conversed with him again on the talk page of the Wikipediocracy (WO) article. (The page's history from this edit through to, say, this edit provides context for what followed.)
On that talk page, on December 8, 2015, after some amusing back and forth, my friend’s friend wrote:
“How odd it is, that the self-declared conflicted editors find such "humor" in a subject that, by all visible indications, makes them purple with rage.”
Which sparked a flicker of interest along a neural pathway in my somnolent brain. Which in turn led to a brief exchange (it doesn't really deserve to be called a dialogue) at his own talk page :
At a rough count you've peppered the WO talk page dialogue with two accusations of “well-poisoning”, one of “poisoning the well” (yay, variation on a theme!), one disparaging "WP:DONTYOUDARECHANGEIT contingent”, one contemptuous “bull arguments”, one general accusation of “genuine user misconduct” one of “perpetrators thereof”, one really rather precious “underwear in a twist”, and one foot-stamping “a hell of a time”. And now also a presumption of “purple with rage”? Please. Projection much? Incidentally I don’t mind being on the receiving end of ad hominems, but I do prefer them to be at least slightly witty. (Nevertheless they give me a laugh either way, so no harm done.) Further, your deep personal animus towards WO is beyond doubt. I rather thought you'd be big enough to admit it when called on it at the article talk page, but as far as I can tell you didn't. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Which would appear to fall well short of the honesty, as you term it, of the WO members who declared a connection. That said, I have no desire for further conflict with the wikifriend of a very good wikifriend who holds you in high esteem. Here’s hoping you reach a comfortable accommodation with your underwear, at least :) . All the best, Writegeist (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Well based on a skim of the above I'd say you're annoyed! Have you considered counseling? Coretheapple (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Have you considered these? I'm sorry, I can't help you any further and I'm not interested in any more dialogue with you on these topics. Happy editing! Writegeist (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Look, did I ask you to come here and shower me with your prose? No. If you don't like the reception, don't turn on the TV. You guys are taking the article super-seriously and reacting hysterically over routine talk page posts because you are conflicted. It happens in COI situations. That's why you declared your COI, assuming you did it in good faith and not for "dramuh." and that why we have COI rules. And speaking of "honesty" I'd like to see one of the defenders of this article have the honesty to admit that they really are conflicted, and that if it was any other article they would be all over a situation like this like a cheap suit. Have a nice day. Coretheapple (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I've started to pay attention to the many Walmart articles. Specifically the Family wealth mentions and making sure they are kept up-to-date. Heck, just a few days ago there was $40 Billion dollars missing. A billion here, a billion there...pretty soon you're talkin' about some real money! While investigating, I ran across this...[9]...which reminded me so much of what we are afraid of regarding paid advocates/editors/operatives. Love your user page. Hope you had a splendid Thanksgiving. TRA!```Buster Seven Talk 20:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kind Sir. When my own $40 billion went missing I realized too late I shouldn't have kept it under the mattress. Looking on the positive side, the bed felt a lot less lumpy after it had gone. Writegeist (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Familiar edit pattern emerging again at Vega, although the frequency is not quite as frenetic as before. Vacation visit from our old friend?
It appears that the article is indeed getting frenetic attention from a number of anonymous editors.842U (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vega's recently arrived single-purpose anon editor 24.191.190.85 exhibits the same distinctive practice (multiple quick-fire edits) as blocked Vegavairbob/Barnstarbob, and geolocates to within 9 miles of Vegavairbob's blocked sock IP 71.167.61.206. Hm. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? I haven't checked back through the article history for other Vegavairbob sock IPs timestamped after his indef, but I wouldn't be surprised if . . . Writegeist (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wolf of Wall Street uses animals including a four-year-old chimpanzee, Chance, who spent time with actor Leonardo DiCaprio and learned to roller skate over the course of three weeks. In December of 2013, just prior to the film's premiere, the organization Friends of Animals criticized the use of the chimpanzee and organized a boycott of the film. Variety reported, "Friends of Animals thinks the chimp...suffered irreversible psychological damage after being forced to watch the 3 hour movie that depicts the sordid behaviors of his fellow "actors". Chance, who was subject to cruel circus-trainer teaching methods early in his life, could suffer from neurotic behaviors and sleep deprevation, ultimately becoming incapable of socially interacting with other chimps, due to his watching of the movie." I know the feeling!!! Best 2 U. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you've left a message on my talk page. I have responded with some curiously apposite words. Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that, as a general rule, when an article becomes increasingly politically charged, the likelihood also increases that experienced and ruthless users with a habitual POV agenda may seize on whatever technicality comes to hand as a means to rid the article of contributions from users they see as opponents.
Indeed. In these circumstances, the best path is to ask for third opinions and get uninvolved editors to weigh in by posting in the various noticeboards. Having said that, one needs a thick skin to edit this pedia... Cwobeel (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Totally. And I'm ¾ armadillo. Writegeist (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your cool head, which should always prevail in WP. Cwobeel (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a genuinely pleasant surprise! I appreciate the appreciation. Incidentally, we armadillos have the advantage of unusually low body (and head) temperature. Writegeist (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm crap at working out reverts. That said, I think these may possibly be the ones they got you on, as they are all reverts within (just) a 24-hour period:
[10], [11] (a revert, it seems to me, as it reinserted content removed by another user), [12], [13]
I do think the block was rather uncalled-for as you have no history (as far as I know) of edit-warring, and you didn't show any intent to keep ignoring 3RR; you might have just misunderstood what constitutes a revert. So it looks more punitive than preventative.
Actually I think a 3RR block is a rite of passage, so really I should congratulate you : ) . Writegeist (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(adding) Interestingly, the blocking admin has a truly vaaaaast log of blocks and obviously loves pulling the trigger!
Thanks Writegeist. My tolerance for interminable BS is lower than most people's, I guess. It was very nice of you to join in, and it will make me feel better for a long time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mine is right down there with yours, believe me :-) . It seems the new lot are resolved to live down to the expectations we had of the old. Plus ça change... I'm glad to know my 2¢ provided a degree of consolation, and only wish it had helped bring about an equitable outcome. (Even a banana republic needs better than a bunch of bananas to run it.) I share your sense of frustration. And while Acton's dictum obviously holds true, I very much hope you won't let the consequences in this instance drive you off. Best wishes, Writegeist (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Singing along with you two precious. My scream about a missed user is on the Main page again, - I screamed only the first time, and the sad list is too long already. Look for "consolation" on my user page. I escaped to a red category, - feel free to join me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Trident13. As an avid collector of tales of Wales, I dug out the Weiss/Daily Mail thread linked at your user page ("I will be the first to admit I don't always get it right - and the typed internet is not sometimes the best medium through which to have clear communication. But I hope the contribution I make is useful and valued ... even though Jimbo Walesdoesn't think so, and made a personal attack on me." — Emphasis added in the link, for clarity.) It's a long and rather chaotic thread, and I didn't find the personal attack; I must have missed it in the to and fro. Doubtless you can go straight to it, so please would you do me a favour and quote it, at least partially, for me (on my talk page if you prefer) so that I can find it when I search again? Then I can add it to my precious (off-wiki) collection of quotes from our revered founding father, who is now also of course a world-renowned champion of free speech. The page is archived, so here is a working link to it for your convenience: [14]. Many thanks. Writegeist (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message - I hope that I find you well! I don't seek a 1on1 confrontation with Jimmy Wales, nor do I wish that to be the outcome of the post on my FP. My great disappointment with Jimmy Wales choice on that occasion - and on numerous occasions since - was that it cut straight across the rules and accept practises of Wikipedia, something which Jimmy claims to live by. The reality is clearly different, in that (1) he thinks he can cut across any Wiki rules, for what ever reasoning, and that (2) a series of underlings hence go forth and do his work, in the vain hope that they may drink from the same table. Jimmy's upset with my edit was further fuelled in that I had chosen to reference the Daily Mail, which as he is someone who is presently married to a Blairite-Labour insider, he considers a sacrosanct sin (if you follow the mentioned above underlings, you will note that they hate the DM even more as part of their commitment/pledge to the JW cause. The DM also on an at least annual basis heavily critic's Wikipedia, most often on accuracy. But the depth of hate between the two organisations goes beyond the public evidence). I fully accept that I made an error in this particular edit, but then so did the newspapers who printed the story (DM, Telegraph, Observer - I have copies of them all), as it was based on a "revenge"-powered false press release pointed towards the victim, who was later compensated by all of the above media outlets. However, does my following of the Wiki rules and quoting references (which I fully accept turned out to be false) justify Jimmy's choice to (1) cut across the rules of Wiki, and (2) send out judgements on others? As personally the rules of Wikipedia are written on a far more collaborative principles - possibly even with socialist aroma's - Jimmy's chosen action illustrated to me the duplicity of the rules here: hence my warning to others, that however you may view the rules here, the "popular/powerful" consider themselves above and beyond them. I have soft and hard copies of all of the above mentioned documents and the exchange on Jimmy's talkpage, but as I said I don't seek a confrontation with Jimmy or anyone here - much as though he broke the rules. So on this occasion I hope that you will understand my choice not to presently provide you with copies of the requested items. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the trouble to respond. I appreciate you're not seeking confrontation with Wales, but I don't quite see how pointing out his alleged attack on you to a third party would constitute a confrontation. Anyway that's not really important. I've revisited the thread. Unless I'm still missing something, your accusation doesn't seem at all justified to me, and if I'm correct (I'm often wrong!), such an accusation itself constitutes a personal attack under WP:NPA if it's unjustified. I wonder if you're alluding to this reference to you from Wales: "[A]n editor in good standing added an outrageous and false statement from a notoriously salacious and unreliable tabloid." Surely describing you as "an editor in good standing" can't possibly be construed as a personal attack? Whereas your describing another user as Wales's "yelping lap dog" surely can be? I just don't get what it was that led you to accuse Wales of making a personal attack on you, so I'll just leave it at that. Again, thanks for the response. Writegeist (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So glad to see this go up—and sure the same will be true for everyone who's ever spent time with this courageous, mischievous, conscientious, exasperating, and lovable fellow. Risking life and limb for coffee and bonbons with the Assads encapsulates him perfectly :~) . Thank you! I have another shot of him in Sarajevo, microphone in hand, interviewing a defender in the street. When I find it I'll add it. Writegeist (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a different one—the one I had in mind turned out to be a profile shot; I'd forgotten. Please feel free to move it or whatever. Writegeist (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is a UTP? Also sorry, I misread your comment and came across as a twat I suspect. Sorry about that. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User Talk Page . . . (I'm so sick of the Wikipedia alphabet soup, yet there I am dispensing it myself.) Actually I mistyped. I should have written UP or "user page", because that's where I commend your articles. I didn't see any twattishness to your comments. (And my Twat-O-Meter is set to super-sensitive.) I couldn't be happier that you've jumped in. My work there during the conflict was strongly focused on crimes against women; particularly rape, and the rape-death camps, and the stories of the survivors. Nuff said :~) Writegeist (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed the cat below. Are you from the area? Is that why you do not edit it? You know I will do my best there, as I do on all such articles. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not from there, but was running around in BiH, Croatia, and RSK (lol, what a crock that was) during the war—freelance reporter/photojournalist. (My first-hand knowledge is too deep, memories too vivid, views too well-informed to be unbiased, sense of connection still too visceral, and associated emotions too volatile, for me to risk tangling with revisionists in editing that article.) How about you? I feel gratitude for your work here. Writegeist (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings dear friend. Your editor retention project is laudable and I wonder if you might consider diversifying into memory retention? Incidentally, studies by scientists whose names I've forgotten working in universities whose names I've forgotten have proved that caffeine improves the memory, or maybe that it doesn't, I can't remember which. After a cup of coffee this morning I did remember the name of one of my children, whose names (and number) usually elude me, but that might have been helped by Mrs. W slapping me upside the head.
I had a sizeable aunt who suffered from a painful bowel obstruction and her life was only saved by (1) a doctor's diagnosis of acute editor retention and (2) a skilled surgeon's incision that released fourteen sizable editors, including my uncle, himself an editor (of Trouser Gusset Quarterly) who had gone missing six weeks earlier.
I do in fact remember #7, and rather wish I didn't. I fear the award would only encourage him, so in all seriousness it's best I don't get involved in this one. All the best, Writegeist (talk)
Not a problem. I remembered (a year ago) you chatting over the back fence with some auto guy. Must be someone else. Coincidently, I also had a sizable aunt. During gall bladder surgery, the doctor found a plastic army man with parachute, a frisbee, a balsa wood gyroscope, a Lady GaGa CD, a superball, a lawn dart, a ref's whistle, a slinky, a giant gummy worm, some confetti and a dozen water balloons. The surprising thing was that not a single member of the family knew that she was a Lady GaGa fan. Beers! ```Buster Seven Talk 22:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Long time no see. I just wanted to stop by and wish you a happy 4th of July. One thing I really miss about the old days at SP is coming in every day to see what you'd written. Thanks for all the fun and good times. Zaereth (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zeitgeist Thank you for capturing the movement of the Zeitgeist in precise wording, realising that "Wikipedia is a humorous parody of Uncyclopedia and Conservapedia" to be edited "boldly, satirically and immediately", for doing so, for knowing about Fucking and Socks, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Here again, second anniversary of confirmed awesomeness, - and thank you for wearing the sapphire, and using tape to not make the internet leak. Would you have a bold, satirical and immediate term for a category which would be in plain English "Victims of Arbitration"? (example pictured) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your minutes of silence inspired me to a little gallery on top of my talk. Peter Maxwell Davies might be one for yours, too. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three years ago, you were recipient no. 536 of Precious, a prize of QAI! - Still same victim. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Five years now! Too many deaths recently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Six years now, and more deaths, - I have an extra section for them on my user page now, and one is on the Main page. Where are you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, that's quite a collection of Signposts you have on your front porch. I don't know why but it makes my remember a quote by Ms. Nussbaum, TV critic for the NewYorker Magazine...
If I have but one rule, it's that critics shouldn't opine on subjects they know nothing about, or use the word 'opine'. (www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture)
All the very best to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
. . . of User:Collect's departure—"I am out of here, barring an unblock",[15] "Adieu",[16] "my last post if the folks get the noose out",[17] "adieu"[18]—and wishing him well in whatever online activities he decides to pursue elsewhere. I'd have preferred to put this farewell message for Collect on his talk page, but we have long refrained from posting on each other's pages and I don't think even his departure is sufficient reason to break with this time-honored tradition. Email? Too secretive and limiting. By contrast, publication on this talk page exposes its untold millions of watchers to the message's good, good, good, good vibrations which—who knows?—might spread like a virus (not Ebola; a nice one) throughout Wikipedia and the world at large. Writegeist (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Similarly, I met a case of wanting to say "precious" today and not able because of page protection, which made me post on an admin's page - where perhaps more people see it than on the redirected talk of an admirable user who left in 2012. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you dear Gerda. As you may know, I have advocated quite vigorously for Collect in the past (for which he has expressed surprise and delight, albeit not on this page of course), and I can see that you empathize with my slight frustration at not being able to address my good wishes to him directly even under these exceptional circumstances. The frozen treat article is indeed precious! I wonder, incidentally, if the alleged sole founder of Wikipedia will name AF as one of the many editors (none identified yet) whom he says were driven off by a particularly outstanding one whose renowned excellence as a content creator he repeatedly demeans as "alleged"? By the way, I am frequently impressed, as I know you and many others are, by the extent of the alleged sole founder's commitment to the love, kindness, thoughtfulness, and moral ambitiousness that he preaches. It will only require one more miracle (in addition to Wikipedia; sadly I don't think Bomis counts) for the pope to issue a Bull of Canonization commanding his veneration as a saint when he eventually ascends to the great encyclopedia in the sky.Writegeist (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, a misunderstanding: I was writing about J. Wales ("the alleged sole founder" of Wikipedia) being sanctified, not Eric, whom I respect, and whose work Wales demeans. I'll revisit the flower question later. Writegeist (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drats!!! And I was just going to nominate him for Editor of the Weak. Through it all, I have great faith in the Wikipedia community's resilience. s ```Buster Seven Talk 17:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings dear Buster. Might it be time to institute a post-departure (I balk at "posthumous") version of EoW for contributors who missed it during their wikilifetimes? For sure, the dear old 'pedia will never be quite the same. End of an era. (Cue Nimrod etc.) Oh dear, I seem to be using up my dwindling supply of the word "dear". Could you lend me a few until next week? Writegeist (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I case you need a topic for a play Ermutigung, the author just played it himself. Highly provoking, something that translates to "You cannot go into hiding / you need us and we need / your cheerfulness right now" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I always appreciate being quoted, and frankly, I really enjoy your writing style. That said, I feel compelled to point out that the comment in question was made in November 2014, rather than in 2011. Of course, the observation does have a certain timeless quality to it, so perhaps it's truthier to keep the 2011 date.
On a related note, I've often marveled at the sheer magnitude and ubiquity of hypocrisy on Wikipedia. Do you think that Wikipedians are actually more hypocritical than the average person? Or does it have something to do with the fact that one's every utterance is preserved in perpetuity here, making it much easier to identify hypocrisy?
On a much more serious note, thank you for the pictures of Sarajevo on your userpage. They're a stark reminder of a horrifying (and apparently nearly forgotten, at least in the US) episode in recent history. I can't imagine what it must have been like to be present during the siege, but thank you for sharing the photos. MastCellTalk 18:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching that. I've corrected it. Re. hypocrisy, I think Laurence Sterne had it right with "Of all the cants which are canted in this canting world . . . the cant of hypocrites may be the worst . . ." It's a trap we all fall into from time to time. It takes determination, great strength of character, and exceptionally vigilant self-awareness to avoid it, and who among us is in possession of all three together at all times? In RL interactions I encounter it (and probably practise it) less than in WP. Also I think you're right that the permanent preservation of written comments makes hypocrisy, like all our traits perhaps, easier to identify. Many thanks also for acknowledging the Sarajevo photographs. "Never again" we say say each time it happens again . . .
As apparently your chosen method of ad hominem is to fuck with a username and ping the user to let him/her know, please do at least try to make your variations witty. Yes I know, it may be asking too much (noting you refer to people who incur your displeasure as "retard" and "dipshit"). Nevertheless it would be amusing to see you try.
So be my guest. Feel free to use this page to practise on! (My username only, please. And please note this is not an invitation to use this page for anything else.)
Happy ad hominemming! Writegeist (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making personal attacks on Jimmy Wales as you have recently and repeatedly done on his talk page. Although he's a founder of Wikipedia, this does not mean he ceded his entitlement to civility, especially on his own talk page. JehochmanTalk 17:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seconding Jehochman's message to you. I came here to tell you to immediately stop. Your repetitive messages are trolling and are now disrupting discussions. WifioneMessage 17:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Priorities differ. Writegeist has been making obnoxious comments on User talk:Jimbo Wales and continues to do so even after the host made clear that the comments were obnoxious (and thus unwelcomed).[19] Please don't post there again, Writegeist, about this issue. You made your point very well; there's no need to belabor the point just to irritate Jimmy. Thank you. And no, I haven't threatened to block you. JehochmanTalk 22:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo is quite capable of stating explicitly he doesn't wish an editor to continue posting on his page, and has done in the past. While I disagree with the opinions Writegeist is expressing, I don't see any policy violations in their doing so. NE Ent 23:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is a minimal, low standard. What has been going on is abusive and obnoxious and should stop, whether or not it violates policy. JehochmanTalk 00:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a personal attack, nor is it abusive or obnoxious. It's merely an opinion that it's hard to square Jimbo's decision to accept $500K from an oppressive regime with his other positions and that while he has pledged to donate the money to human rights causes, he apparently hasn't yet done that nor has he identified the organizations to which he's going to give it Jimbo may find all of this quite inconvenient and wish it would go away but he's a public figure, he chose to accept the $500K, it's a legitimate question and it's one that's being asked in the media. NE Ent really hit this on the head: Jimbo is a big boy and I think if he's unhappy and wishes to respond, he can do that himself. Or he may decide to ignore it completely. What I don't think is appropriate is for an admin to start making questionable charges of personal attacks (I remind you that making a false charge is also a personal attack) nor do I find it particularly credible that if admin posts a warning about personal attacks on an user's talk page that it doesn't come with an implicit threat of a block. Msnicki (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you following me around too? Yes, it's abusive and obnoxious, and it's incredibly unhelpful for you both to be flying around in formation providing cover for every editor who has confused Wikipedia with Reddit. Just because I'm an admin doesn't mean I need to grin and bear it when witnessing one editor abusing another. You should feel a little empathy for that situation. JehochmanTalk 01:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not following you around. But I did see Writegeist's complaint on Jimbo's talk page about your "visit" and decided to read all his recent contributions to see if I agreed with you. I read them all and I don't. I held off making any comment to see how you'd respond to the criticism I was sure you'd get. You've rejected it and I decided to say something. Msnicki (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Msnicki, Sluzzelin and NE Ent: thank you for the refreshing level-headedness and rationality of your insights here.
Wifione and Jehochman: I appreciate surrealism and generally welcome it on this page. Unfortunately your overwrought accusations (i.e. of personal attacks, incivility, trolling, disruption, obnoxiousness, abusiveness, intention "just to irritate Jimmy", confusion of Wikipedia with Reddit, etc.) are not just out there, which would be OK. They're devoid of any merit, which is not. As administrators, you should get that. I also note that one of you continued to argue the toss even after the errors in your comments had been pointed out to you. You both need to raise your game if you're to be welcomed here in future.
In haste, and wishing you all a very happy Christmas. Writegeist (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Holiday Greetings, my friend. I see 'The Conversation Pit" you built over the summer is getting some use. Beers! ```Buster Seven Talk 21:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you too my good friend. Yes, the conversation pit is living, or at least comfortably upholstered, proof that those who mocked and said it would only attract dimwits like me were just talking out of their backsides.
Admittedly one or two guests have been known to say stuff that's out of place in an intellectual salon whose lofty standards are the toast of the world's intellectual elite. So it's just as well that the salon in question sets the bar at about the height of a midget's kneecap. Ya gotta start somewhere, right? And—because I know you'll ask—the answer is yes, I do keep a midget handy for routine checks on the calibration. There's an unexpected bonus in the dexterity of his tiny hands. They're, well, handy for the challenging task of milking my pedigree herd of basmati rice grains. (Rice milk for one's morning coffee is so expensive in the stores.) Feel free to borrow him when you visit. His name is Elvis. He also pours generous measures of Maker's Mark, by the way. I just wish he wouldn't drink them. Last Monday he passed out on the floor and a friend of Lysistrata's tripped over him and sustained a painful Pott's fracture. Up until then I had thought she was from a respectable family but my god, the language. Turns out both her parents are lawyers. Happy holidays Buster! See you on the other side. Writegeist (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes quite interesting, the people who turn up here. Take administrator Wikione, for example, who has graced us with his/her presence in this thread. Questions were raised about him/her in the course of an investigation at Wikipediocracy. There was a Wikipedia editor review. Wikione quietly withdrew from activity here, and cofounder Wales expressed a wish for him/her to stay away. Apparently (s)he chose to disregard it.
Also interesting are the comments in this thread from a vigilant IP. Wikione deleted them as being from a "banned user". They are preserved in the page history. Writegeist (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merely a suggestion, but I think this would be an excellent time to drop it. There's a time to walk away, especially when you seem to have won some support that you might lose in a hurry if you're not careful. Msnicki (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for this sage advice. I've dropped it now (on my toe as it happens, but I have others). I have also walked or rather limped away, and taken the chill pill. Quite a stressful time of year! Writegeist (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you a jolly season too. During my break, I have been chasing after the intelligence explosion which I anticipate will give me absolute power over the entire universe (bwahahahahaha), if the programming is written just right to keep the computers from doing their own thing. My newly and successfully tested high beta fusion reactor should rapidly propel us toward implementation of that happy intelligence explosion, or at least will stop this disgusting flood of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Take the inverse of all those thrills and chills, and you quantify the happiness of my dealings with admins and arbcom. Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some editor gave me one of those mushy Wiki-Love messages[edit]
and suggested that I pass it on. Like I don't have better things to do with my time. Anyway...here it is. Enjoy Buster Seven Talk 16:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Let me take this opportunity to invite you and the lovely missus Geist to join me on the poop deck of the good ship HMS Wikipedia.
Careful! There are sharks nearby! We are currently docked at my talk page awaiting proper documentation for Starr, the cat, and a herd of 300 American Bison. I hope the papers get here soon since the porters I have hired refuse to clean up after the bison. What can I say----UNIONS!!! The reason for this hurried decision is a 3 day holiday to honor a fellow collaborator that has lost his ability to ply his trade for 2 days.[20] Another fellow traveler may have his license rescinded for a month!!! I should know soon if I take a 2 day trip to Savannah, Georgia where I have some land or a full month in which we head for the Golden Opportunities in CUBA. Can you imagine? Buffalo burgers, Cuban Rum and a good Havana cigar. Free Enterprise, I love it! TRA! Buster Seven Talk 01:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beware, O Men-of-War! The king fixes upon you with his gloomy eye. Let not his ill-tempered cannons roar. He rings his bell, calling forth his emissaries to rout your pirated enterprise. A great many fifes and drums echo over the land. From fortifications high on the edifice his cannons are pointed toward you. Set well your lanyards should a blow strike you broadside. Godspeed, dear friend. The Flying Dutchman AKA Buster Seven Talk 22:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
good friends have a photo question at SV's talk page. I thought you might have a photo answer. TRA!. Buster Seven Talk 02:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for unhatting this discussion. This is the third discussion in the last several months (I'm sure there's many more) where I've directly observed questionable judgment and action from Jehochman (I'm not pinging him because he has a habit of making wild accusations, and if I do ping him, I'm sure he'll invent something like "ping harassment"). My question to you is simple: can anything be done about Jehochman's increasingly erratic behavior? Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I detest hatting. It's so anti-editor no matter what is being said. Are we little children that need protection? I came here looking a quick answer for who the hatter was rather than looking in the history. I know who the editor protector was!!. TY. . Buster Seven Talk 17:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas: Thank you for dropping by. Excellent question. It's been three weeks and I still haven't come up with an answer. RfC/Us are useless; Arbcom, ditto. I don't know. Ridicule? His actions and utterances certainly are ridiculous. Contributions that convey a totally unwarranted sense of self-importance overlaying gravely limited comprehension skills are always good for a laugh—unlike their tedious consequences. How about a new category: Erratic users we don't know what to do about?
Buster: Greetings, dear friend. This is wonderful. You were curious about the identity of The Hatter, and where was it revealed to you? Here on my humble page! Wikipedia really IS the sum of all human knowledge. On a more serious note (if notes can be any more serious than the sum of all human knowledge), and this is absolutely true: Lysistrata and I took delivery of a new sofa on the very day that you so generously donated your garage sale bargain. Spooky. They're very different, but we have eclectic tastes so your gift works well at Disorderly Manor, where nothing really goes with anything else. Thank you. It was a comfortable perch from which to view some unfortunate but curiously satisfying goings-on at the 'pedia while nursing a Maker's Mark or three and fondling the stuffed cat (I allow it onto the sofa because it doesn't shed, although now, in its dotage, there's the occasional dribble of stuffing from its left ear, sometimes accompanied by a spider). Writegeist (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, thank you for expanding on your thoughts and needs. I have a fuller understanding of your point of view. (And incidentally I have experienced—in fact, am still experiencing—grievous losses similar to your own.) I'd hoped my post at your UTP would clarify that the reference was not intended as a joke or a throwaway line, but rather as a serious comment that characterizes behavior like C's as a scourge on the project. I do appreciate now that the choice of metaphor is not one that works for you in this context. Rest assured I shall bear that in mind in future interactions between us. Best wishes, Writegeist (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Writegeist, as far as I'm concerned we're good, I think we were good already since you were kind enough to come to my talk page and leave me a note. So rock on, and keep doing the work we should be doing. If it weren't for you AMC Pacer would look terrible--the article, not the car (it can't be saved). Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you, I feel reassured and relieved. But by your discovery of my secret pleasure, not so much :) . Writegeist (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at User:Ched/50. This may get interesting. It may also turn into a nice place to take a nap. . Buster Seven Talk 22:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only other account I have here is TomStar810 (talk·contribs), a declared sock. Out of curiosity, why do you ask? Its none of my business, but it seems a rather odd thing to inquire about, hence the question. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just spotted the reply on your talk page message at the top of the page. It was not my intention to ignore your request for reply, I just got caught up in reading all the other material on your talk page and missed the one liner proclamation. I offer no excuse, and will be more careful about that in the future. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, your userbox triggered my curiosity. Thank you for the disclosure. Best wishes, Writegeist (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you Buster. Alas, I don’t think Lysistrata and I can save him this time—not even if we summon all seven of the magical powers we learned during those ghastly years in India as students of Maharishi Heypresto. And as fate would have it, we solemnly swore never to use them. Oh god, the prickly heat we suffered in our Donegal thornproof tweeds. And poor L, there wasn’t a single stick or whatever you call it of her Max Factor Harem Scarlet lipstick to be had in the bazars of le tout Delhi (I flew her down in my little Dragon Moth, sure we’d find a branch of Harrod’s or something). But I must say she’s wonderfully brave in the face of adversity. We shall pray, of course, just as we did for dear old Wotsisname when the crocodile took his leg. What was his name? Friend of Ernest and Martha’s. Anyway, a fat lot of good it did him. I fear we really do reap what we sow. Rather Biblical, eh? Or perhaps I mean agricultural. I get confused. It’s the Martinis. But anyway the arbs, like God, work in mysterious ways their wonders to perform. So who knows? Sic transit gloria mundi. 'Gloria was sick in the bus on Monday'—the only Latin my mother ever taught me so I use it at every opportunity, kind of in her memory. Although she's still alive. Writegeist (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now, at the gentleman's talk page, in yet another diverting twist to the discussion there about the Arbcom case against him, he regurgitates chunks of dialogue I had with a sysop seven years ago. Given that (1) I’m not a party to the case, (2) I very specifically told the Arbcom clerk to remove me (which (s)he did) and that I wanted no part it, and (3) I have presented not one byte of evidence, I find it rather creepy that my ancient prose is being used as a diversionary tactic. On the other hand, it should come as no surprise because—oh look, a squirrel! Writegeist (talk)
Oh, and following the regurgitation he writes: “I keep no enemies list, nor would I ever keep one . . . Writegeist does . . .” — a personal attack so wildly absurd that it's given me the best laugh of the day (well OK, not much of a day so far but we live in hope) :) . He couldn’t possibly—and obviously doesn’t—know what he's talking about. As a matter of fact I don’t regard Collect or any other avatar on en.wiki as an enemy—the very thought of it is absurd—although there are some whose repellant modus operandi (e.g. wikilawyering, economy with the truth, misrepresenting others’ comments, misunderstanding and aggressively misapplying policies, bullying and self-pity, deviousness, incompetence, refusal and/or inability to follow the reasoning in others’ comments let alone collaborate, lousy signal-to-noise ratio, and argument until the heat death of the universe etc., all of which I've seen here over the years) makes their presence, in my view, such a pain in the ass that any reasonable person might regard their participation as a net negative. Writegeist (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pursuant to facts presented above and in light of recent events to numerous to mention and considering that I could switch to Africaans so that you understanding is minimalized, in spite of the fact the High Holy Days are upon us which will restrict the available editing time to provide evidence in either case to but a meager few hours my question for you is....did the squirrel have a golden tail or a rusty brown tail (black is also a possibility)??? Happy Easter (which, if you remember a Mothers Day wish from the past, is code for Happy Easter. . Buster Seven Talk 20:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pursuant to the squirrel: Definitely a rusty brown tail. And rusty everything else as it was a yard-art squirrel, made from the left front fender of a junked 1949 Chevrolet pickup by the renowned fender bender artist Chevy Fender (I know how you like coincidinks). I spotted the little oxidized critter just as thieves made off with it around the corner of my talk page. Turns out they didn't know the stupendous value of a Chevy Fender creation. They only took it as a diversionary tactic to draw the heat away from a nearby bank heist so that their partners in crime would have enough time for it—them needing more than the usual amount of time allocated to bank heists on account of being elderly midgets who’d need several attempts to vault the counter. Sure, they were short in stature and weak of limb, but they were strong on planning.
Oh look, something shiny.
Happy hols to you too, old bean. Writegeist (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now of course, at the eleventh hour, having pretended he would not participate in the case, suddenly presents a screed, obviously long in the making, on the evidence page.The closing—"for here I stand; I can do no other"—tempts me to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen with something like: "User, you are no Martin Luther." Writegeist (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a coincidence that you mention song in the same thread as Chevy Fender. If I remember correctly, Chevy's second uncle on his fathers side was Freddy Fender whose biggest hit was Wasted Days and Wasted Nights. How appropriate don't ya think? The closing makes me think of the old adage, "Here I sit, broken-hearted, tried to ......". I think you know the rest. . Buster Seven Talk 09:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Matching: Tristis est anima mea, but I also remember "Whatever gets you through the night ...". I am in the middle of writing another FA, - that also helps. DYK? Luther was mentioned in two hooks on Maundy Thursday, btw. For resurrection, see the top of my user page. For a new play, see the talk of an actor whose name I may not mention, remembered by me as actor/director of Hamlet in film, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ps: The mysterious ways of the arbs: I truly love my restriction of 2 comments per discussion - why I may not say the name of the actor. - I learned Tristis when my mother died but wrote Geh aus, mein Herz in her memory, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Pursuant to section 3a' is hilarious. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know and work with Editor Li235 over at WER/Eddy. He is congenial and very competent. I wish him well in the face of what may turn into a fiasco if the Main party to the troubles, the main instigator to the troubles, does his usual "I can't be bothered. I leave my minions to answer any accusations of conduct." We have seen this before. Where was it? I wish I had kept my notes but they were lost at sea on my recent trip to Cuba which did not go well, I must say. Upon arrival at Porto de Fidel in Havana Harbor, the bison were spooked during off-loading and escaped into the hills. They sent a message by proxy (Attorney Alice de Vunderlangdt) that they would only communicate by posting responses on the Cathedral Door. TRA! . Buster Seven Talk 12:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent you some correspondence via e-mail from back in 2008 when we first met. Enjoy! . Buster Seven Talk 14:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said pretty much what I would have said had I been allowed to say what I wanted to say when I wanted to say it but now its too late 'cause you already said it. Drats! I missed my chance! My little Webster's Pocket Dictionary isn't too clear on whether minion and proxy are the same thing. I think they are pretty close...like mirage and illusion....or forboding and melted cheese. I've been chastised for using the word "minion" so I want to be very careful not to over-step. The reference to ESandL is right on the money...a foreshadowing perhaps. Best to the stuffed cat. Starr sends his love. . Buster Seven Talk 06:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dangerous humor? Ah, the creeping fundamentalist Iranification of Wikipedia. It took a while to get started here. For example, way back in 2006 Iran arrested Mana Neyestani for his humorous cartoon in the newspaper Iran that showed a little boy and a cockroach conversing in Farsi. There are more ancient precedents, of course. In 443, Attila the Hun reportedly killed ninety-odd Roman soldiers in a battle for Constantinople while dressed as Attila the Nun. The Huns, although not widely known for their sense of humour, apparently thought it very funny at the time. By the way isn't "minion" a rather expensive filet of steak? Fyi a proxy is someone who is simultaneously afflicted with dropsy and the pox. Writegeist (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "medallion" which is always a convincing addition to your made-up definition when playing the game of Pictionary...my grandkids are easily fooled when I use big 25¢ words like "recalcitrant" or "complicity" or "provocateur". As stroll down memory lane reminds me that my eighth grade BVM sister was nicknamed "Attila the Nun". She looked like Babe Didrikson but with an attitude. Corporal punishment was not just expected as a part of a parochial upbringing; it was a requirement.. Buster Seven Talk 19:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! That's exactly the literary analogy I was looking for, although the best I could come up with was Polonius, from Hamlet. MastCellTalk 19:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, both. And variously also, from time to time, Mrs. Malaprop, the Hatter, Billy Bunter, and (not so literary but no less analogous), Hyacinth Bucket. Writegeist (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Rats, I forgot Violet Elizabeth Bott—"I will thcweam and thcweam until I am thick!" Writegeist (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We put thirty spokes together and call it a wheel;
But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the wheel depends.
We turn clay to make a vessel;
But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the vessel depends.
We pierce doors and windows to make a house;
And it is on these spaces where there is nothing that the usefulness of the house depends.
We spend endless hours to create an online encyclopedia;
But it is on the 'to be edited' space that the effort lives.
Therefore, just as we take advantage of what is, we should recognize the usefulness of what is not.
Somewhere in the emptiness of "Future Wikipedia" is a Use-full-ness place to be happy. I hope to someday find it. . Buster Seven Talk 21:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been nominated for EotW at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations#Editor Buster 7. Of course, I can't accept and have opined as such. But it is nice to hear (from the multitude) how wonderful I am. And....thats the rub! So far the "multitude" counts about 5 (if you count the nominator). I wonder if you have any thoughts on the matter that you would like to share with the huddled masses. I can pay you 5¢ a word for up to 100 words and 3¢ a word for anything over 100. (The Koch Brothers aren't the only ones that can buy votes!!!) Buster Seven Talk 00:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you holding out for more cash? Is that what the Bravo means? I'm a little short right now. The deal with Trump to build an island in the middle of Lake Michigan (Trump Island, of course) fell thru but I still had to pay all the fees for holding the rights to the landfill (actually just NYC garbage) in barges along the St. Lawrence Seaway. Not sure what I'll do with it now. Maybe Detroit Michigan is in the market. TRA! . Buster Seven Talk 17:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article Rainbow Body informs us that for peeps who complete “the four visions before death” and focus on “the lights that surround their fingers,” the following happens: their “physical body self-liberates into a nonmaterial body of light . . . with the ability to exist and abide wherever and whenever as pointed by one’s compassion.” Their bodies shrink instead of decomposing, until all that’s left is hair and nails. A template* says “This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.” (“Technical” is used here in its lesser-known sense of “batshit crazy.”)
The article lists seven people “reported to have attained the rainbow body.” They probably attained it at the Rainbow Body Shop. It’s in California, in a town called Eureka. Writegeist (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Removed in June 2015. But not replaced by one stating "This topic is batshit crazy."
Hi Writegeist. I got your name from the list of editors that signed up at WikiProject Cooperation a while back. I feel that there is consensus here to remove a lot of primary sources from the MarkMonitor page that were used to create an original analysis. The primary sources are published by people with a financial connection to MarkMonitor and/or political advocacy groups. However, since at least one editor (the original author of the content) supports the content's inclusion, I cannot remove it myself due to WP:COI (it is a controversial edit if even one editor opposes it). Do you have a minute to take a look? CorporateM (Talk) 18:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, Crisco 1492 just took care of it. Forget I brought it up! CorporateM (Talk) 18:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hot off the presses... [21] Lindsey Graham promises to have ‘a rotating first lady’ if elected president. As of yet, there has been no information provided to answer the three most obvious questions: 1) How many "Rotating First Ladies" will be required? 2) How long will they rotate? 3) Where will the rotating take place? The White House? The Oval Office? Air Force One?
Quite the coinkidink. Lysistrata (i.e. Mrs Geist, my fourth First Lady) was in an almost perpetual state of rotation, being descended from a long (and rotating) line of whirling dervishes. I was never quite sure whether she was spinning to the right or the left, as you will see from this little film I made of her with my phone. Her current husband says bits have begun to fly off her, although fortunately nothing crucial so far—a finger here, an eyeball there. No worries, I told him, it’s just part of the aging process, and bits can fall off even when we’re standing still. The other day as I left Tiffany’s a vigilant employee handed me my own left ear. He'd seen it quietly drop off while I was examining a selection of diamond-encrusted oven thermometers, one of which I bought for Lysistrata. (I like to give her something that's at least faintly romantic on our divorce anniversary.) The thermometer is analogue of course. Not as accurate as digital, but I have it on good authority, from the Tiffany's salesman actually, that the digital ones have a "back door" for the NSA to collect data on who cooks what, for how long, and at what temperature. Writegeist (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I'm normally 'against' userspace on principle, I like your userspace. :-) I made a suggestion to User:Stabila711 that "new" bangvotes be moved into the multi-bangvote area that I (attempted) to set up, so that people can mark more than one option as "support" and/or "oppose". Are you comfy with moving your bangvote, and at your option, multi-voting or otherwise commenting? See greenboxen at User_talk:Stabila711#presidential_candidate_bangvotes, thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that being cool-looking is not the criterion we should bangvote, based upon. But that is what a lot of the bangvotes that were already in place, when I happened along, seemed to be using as their rationale. "Wikipedia needs to look modern" is just coded language for "Wikipedia needs to keep up with the kewl kids". As you say, WP:NOTFACEBOOK applies. I'm against the circles, and I'm also against looking 'cool' whenever it conflicts with maximal ease-of-editing, ease-of-reading, ease-of-access, and ease-of-mobile-device-usage, among other things. But where those things are not at stake, I see no reason not to let people work on improving aesthetics, since after all, that's one of the pillars.
I don't care if wikipedia is cool, in the eyes of Justin Bieber or whatever, but I do think that there is room for wikipedia to let people do stuff that is only tangentially encyclopedic, but which makes the place more enjoyable for them, to remain editors -- e.g. userspace, e.g. IRC channels, e.g. graphic layout redesign efforts. Often there is little encyclopedic ROI from such things, but every so often we get good stuff out as a result. Not sure if this RfC will result in such an outcome, but we'll see. I definitely REALLY dislike the jarring aesthetic differential between old-school and cool-school, which to me looks like an aesthetically-motivated POV fork, that ought to be merged into the main comparative-article. Or at least, we need to settle on a style, and apply it uniformly. Time will tell. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s say...You like to mow the golf-course fairway - but some pesky kids keep throwing water balloons at you. You get discouraged because the balloons hurt and the water chills you to the core and your glasses get all fogged up and you can’t see where you are going and so you drive off the fairway and into the rough and you hit a tree and you fall off the riding mower and you land in a ditch filled with brackish water and your clothes get all smelly and you have to walk home along a dirt road and some rabid white-tailed deer attack you and you try to leap over a barbed wire fence but you are not really athletic and so you land straddling the fence.
Question: How many of Trump’s “illegal aliens” will apply for the landscaping job? . Buster Seven Talk 21:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Mr. Trump wants to build an “impenetrable” 2,000-mile wall between Americky and Mexico. He expects the Mexican government to pay. Surely there’d be a better chance of persuading Mexico to fund construction of an impenetrable wall around Mr. Trump? As for aliens, sure they may look a bit funny but I don’t see why they should be illegal. (Is Mr. Trump an alien?) Writegeist (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Henning Mankell, for living in Africa for long periods, raising awareness and starting cultural projects, writing Chronicler of the Winds (Comédia infantil), a sad stub - compare German, will have to translate some,- articles not what they should be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the gentle reminder, dear Gerda. I have included him. Writegeist (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could some more plot from the review I found? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy shout, just for opposition, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gerda! Your happy shouts are always so perfectly in tune :) Writegeist (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my Q&A for the background note, for extra enjoyment of the absurd, - perhaps write another play, now that your former hero doesn't need theater any more, producing it himself, act one: mass email about the enormous importance of arbcom ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The one that talks about misrepresenting policies and other users' comments blah, blah, blah. I've hung it up high on my User Page so no one pisses on it or rips it down or anything. I've un-retired but I've come back a little narly. I'm taking meds for the condition which should improve over time in which case I'll return to my warm cuddly self. TRA! Buster Seven Talk 08:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gnarly or warm and cuddly, I don’t care—I’m just delighted to see you’re back. Hope you got the banner tied down securely. It whipped around quite viciously the other day when one of the cords broke in a storm. Almost took my eye out. Well I think it just broke but there's always the possibility of sabotage. Or squirrels.Writegeist (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Fossilized Barnstar
I un-earthed this while panning for gold in Estes Park, Colorado on the Big Thompson River. Its for all your hard work at guarding warm rears. Buster Seven Talk 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
..ran across an IP that was looking for his "testarticles". He claims they were missing when he woke the next morning and cannot be found. Have you seen them anywhere around here? 173.15.103.65 (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that. I had a look around but all I could find was this pitiful little Balzac with almost nothing in it. Writegeist (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have hired Chance, the chimp, to help me fix some of the recent articles that got me in trouble with The Plaigerism Police. It's slow work because Chance's attention span is limited. If he sees anything yellow he right away assumes it's a banana. And then, when he finds its just a yellow maple leaf that has been blown in from outside, he sulks for hours. But, he's a Republican so he's not really too concerned about the minimum hourly wage...so it all averages out. A Happy Thankful Holiday to All. Buster Seven Talk 21:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago I had jaundice really badly. There was a heatwave, and the aircon was on the fritz. I was walking around the house stark naked. Ever since, I've thanked my lucky stars that I hadn't hired Chance to fix any articles for me. By the way, should't he be running for president? Writegeist (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to see Kevin Gorman—outstanding for poor judgment and dismal conduct when under pressure IMO—put himself up for election to Arcom. Of all the so-called "voter guides", Boing! said Zebedee’s is the one with the the most incisive appraisal of this individual's candidacy:
Kevin Gorman My existing impression of Kevin was that he is very much an agenda-driven person who holds grudges, and someone who can never accept the possibility that he might be wrong. At heart he seems to see himself as an honest champion of equality, and that is to be admired, so he certainly deserves a fair evaluation. But unfortunately, the more I look the more I see an example of "When you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail", and I see Kevin looking for gender fights and helping stir them up even where they really don't exist.
Instead of listening to criticism and learning from it, Kevin has been railing against it, haranguing those who dare criticize him, and drawing on every threat he can think of to try to shut them up - even asking other admins to redact their contributions, dragging them to the drama board of ANI to try to get them blocked, and removing their interactions from his candidate question page. If this is the battlefield way he deals with the relatively mild election process, how could he possibly cope with the serious challenges that he would face as an Arb?
Despite Kevin's claims that he subsequently got support for his actions, I think his violation of WP:OUTING policy (which he continues to defend in the apparent belief that his own values are superior to policy) was fundamentally wrong and not something I want to see, ever, in an Arbcom candidate. This is not someone who should be allowed access to private information.
In total, I see someone who has a very poor sense of self-awareness, an overblown sense of his own infallibility, zero ability to empathise with those with different opinions to his own, and someone who would be severely destructive to the collaborative environment that is essential to the running of Arbcom.
To you personally, Kevin, I'm genuinely sorry to have to be this harsh - I think you're a genuinely nice guy, but you are unsuited to this kind of collaborative role.|| Oppose
And these observations very politely expose the falsehoods in a self-serving narrative written by Gorman.
My German is a little rusty but I think he is saying, "I am Walter Cronkite". . Buster Seven Talk
Buster, proceedings at the UN would be a lot more interesting—and probably no less effective—with you as an official translator! Writegeist (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what extravagant gifts I’ll receive from Mrs. Geist this Christmas. Prominent among last year’s was one that had a sticker with gratuitous advice to “keep out of reach of children,” which is almost impossible at Christmas, when they’re super-sticky and ultra sugar-charged, and even more demented than usual. I’ve become fond of the word “bodacious” (I know you noticed it) and I’ll try to work it into Wikipedia articles from now on. Have a bodacious Christmas, Hanukkah (just in time I hope), or what
You notice how the more evidence you present to Jimbo, the more he just goes into "short, pithy denial" mode? I wonder if that works effectively on a sufficient number of people who observe it (i.e., sort of like Donald Trump), or if he's viewed practically speaking as more of a joke (i.e., sort of like Joe Isuzu or Tommy Flanagan). What do you think? - 2001:558:1400:10:495E:95BF:1941:D3F9 (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he can get really very pithy when anyone challenges the bluster. I'd have thought it was counter-productive but, as you point out, getting pithy seems to work for Trump.. That said, the vast majority of teh communiteh at WP are serious-minded and tremendously highly educated peeps who are well up in Greek mythology, as any fule kno. So they might think that although Jimbo touts himself as a Titan of free speech activism he’s really a kind of hapless trickster, a latter-day Prometheus to the community's all-seeing Zeus, vainly proclaiming himself the sole bearer of the (stolen) fire that forged Wikipedia for the benefit of humankind, and also dressing up the bones and offal of worthless utterances as the hearty meat of truth (the trick endlessly repeated and repeatedly exposed), and suffering the eternal punishment of never regaining a semblance of truthiness with anyone who's paying attention. Something along those lines.
To me he’s more of a Dud (an American version), particularly Dud in the “Bloody Greta Garbo” skit, only less endearing. Thank you for introducing me to Joe Isuzu (wish I’d seen the ads) and Tommy Flanagan (I never saw SNL in the eighties). Off to YouTube now. Writegeist (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas! Christmas, everywhere, on every talk page, I do dispair Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told, but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD! So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return.
Have a great Holiday Season. As is usually the case, I have sent my first Holiday Greetings card to you. Many might say it is because you are my most loyal and true Wiki-Friend. Truth is, rather than start with User:Aardvaark, I invert the alphabet and begin with "W". Fair warning: I plagiarized this card from another editor...I don't know who. But...it's not like I copied a Hallmark card. Or is it????? Buster Seven Talk 23:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(The designer of the card is User:Samtar)
Dear Buster, thank you, I'm honored you start at W. My darling Lysistrata, who always dispenses oodles of good cheer at Christmas, has done a very clever animated card this year. She's such a multi-talented gal! As you're my reciprocally loyal and true Wikifriend I'm sending it to you first: [23] Happy, happy Christmas to you and yours! Writegeist (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In appreciation of your diligence, resilience, integrity, patience and civility. .
I found this in the back yard. I think you dropped it. My only question is "what were 'ya doin' in my back yard and why didn't my pit-bull, Killer, bite you in the ass?". Buster Seven Talk 02:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had too much egg nog! Plus I may have added a little too much Tangueray gin. ...turns out it wasn't you but The Donald. Two things: 1) I don't think you will see Donald sitting down for the next few months, and 2) I gave Killer an extra bog biscuit. Buster Seven Talk 03:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gee thanks! Myself, I've had too little egg nog. (The chickens are on strike. Lord, don't chickens know the price of corn these days? No way I can afford it. And anyway what's wrong with rotting veggie scraps? More than enough vitamins. I'm negotiating with a fox to go and negotiate with the chickens.)
Ah, Killer. That's the kind of service dog I need around the place. Let me know when Killer sires or gives birth to puppies. Sometimes when I venture into the gulags of the 'pedia I arm myself with Santa Claws the cat in case I run into trouble but he's not much use, mainly (as you know) on account of being stuffed. Nevertheless the stuffing is quite hard, so when I run into really big assholes I tend to give them a slap upside the head with him. Of course the heads are always up the asses, so it's not a pretty business. I put the cat in a strong plastic bag. Only after business is concluded do I let the cat out of the bag. (Did you know that's how the saying came about?) Then I throw it away. (Bag not cat.) May you have a happy, prosperous, stress-free, Trump-free new year, my friend. Writegeist (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks need to be redacted. Thank you. v/r - TP 21:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC) 
s ```Buster Seven Talk 15:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC) 
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC) 
s ```Buster Seven Talk 17:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 
.jpg)
or a full month in which we head for the Golden Opportunities in CUBA. Can you imagine? Buffalo burgers, Cuban Rum and a good Havana cigar. Free Enterprise, I love it! TRA! Buster Seven Talk 01:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 
to help me fix some of the recent articles that got me in trouble with The Plaigerism Police. It's slow work because Chance's attention span is limited. If he sees anything yellow he right away assumes it's a banana. And then, when he finds its just a yellow maple leaf that has been blown in from outside, he sulks for hours. But, he's a Republican so he's not really too concerned about the minimum hourly wage...so it all averages out. A Happy Thankful Holiday to All. Buster Seven Talk 21:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC) 
. I just now got the jaundice+naked+Chance the chimp+article=joke. Buster Seven Talk 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
. Buster Seven Talk 
.png)
Tank
Ewe
Berry
Muff
.jpg)