User talk:Bishonen

I have of late lost all my mirth.

[On 3 March, quirky maternal "Mommy Bear", turned loner Polar Bear, abandoned the socks without a qualm (all this comic relief is a sad mistake), and walked into the whiteout of the coming ice age.] Giacomo left the project and I couldn't speak a word to stop him, because I understood his reasons so well. Will this winter ever bloom again? Well, that depends, don't it? Right now, I don't see it. But just in case, I'm leaving MONGO's handsome "accidental" neotropical cormorant on guard below, as a sign of hope. Accidental means that the species is so rare for the region where this one was sighted (Washington County, Nebraska) that it's reported only 1 to 4 times per decade. But it can happen. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This user is hibernating. Ice age coming. Applies to all of Svalbard.

To every thing

there is a season,

and a time to every purpose under the heaven
— Ecclesiastes/Pete Seeger/The Byrds

Best of luck in your future endeavors. Nobody Ent 13:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desysop request

Hey Bish, done that, added some of the other bits back (rollback, edit patrol etc), but just wanted to let you know you're no longer an admin and you didn't leave under a cloud. At least, not a Wiki-cloud. Hope all is well with you, happy new year, take care. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Giacomo Returned 20:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is everything OK, Bish? If you need a break from adminship, no worries, of course, but wanted to check on you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Bishonen is quite well, but (like myself) tired of some of the antics taking place here lately. In her (hopefully short) absence, I have been placed in charge of this page - I think it a pity she chose to throw her admin tools away rather than hand them over to someone wise who would have made good use of them - I can think of several people I would block if she had given them to me, but there you are - too late now. During her absence, I have been asked to remove all bots, stupid comments and posts from people I dislike. Good evening to you all. Catherine Rollbacker de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you would have given her jewels and valuables back that you "retained", she would have let you have the tools? Maybe she thought that you wouldn't give those back either.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the news, Your Ladyship. Herr Läufer shall wait for Frau Bishonen's return. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why throw them away if you are just taking a break?—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 14:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bish can ask for the bit back whenever. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that Bish will still be recovering from the serious health problem she had before Christmas. These things take longer than you think they will (like builders really) and it can get you quite down if you're *still* not 100%. I'm sure a break will be good, and she'll be back before Lady Catherine has auctioned the furniture. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its a shame, editors seem to be leaving this place like rats and a sinking ship...maybe its just cause of the whole Mayan calendar end of the world Hoax. At least a dozen experienced editors have left in the last 2 weeks alone. At least 4 of them on the top 20 most active editors list. Place will be all Nube's soon. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

until spring

Ta, Nobody Ent. Nice greenery, but I doubt it'll come to a sticky end. Those ridiculous bears seem to be headed for a new ice age, rather than de-hibernation. All they do is moan about how Giacomo left, they're sad, boo hoo. Did you notice the "three little socks" are impersonations of Bishzilla, Pod and Fish? Check out their talkpages, you'll see they're hibernating and stuff. [Proudly. ] Not me! Last sock standing! As soon as 'shonen is good and gone, I'll see if I can take over her admin tools. Not give them up under a cloud, so why not! And my evil nature is currently best possible representation of the personality of Actual Secret Individual who runs us all, so most suitable! darwinbish ^BITE 19:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Sock? No socks here, just Bishonen alternate accounts. Not nasty sock. No evil nature, only Sauron and Sauruman evil. Nobody Ent 00:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

darwinbish portrait

Hi Bishonen! One of your evil menagerie recently thanked me for fixing their pic. I hope this means Bishzilla won't try to eat me some time in the near future. That task is best left to my parents' elderly corgi.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best Wishes

Hope all is well and wishing you a Happy and Prosperous New Year (Prospero Año Nuevo as we sometime-Spanish say). Get Well Soon/Speedy Recovery is offered also as applicable. ML (Much Love as we sometime-Scientologists say). Your friend --Lyncs (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:User pages#RfC: Should "new messages" banner hoaxes be prohibited?

Hi Bishonen. You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Simulating the MediaWiki interface (joke banners redux). I have started an RfC about the issue: Wikipedia talk:User pages#RfC: Should "new messages" banner hoaxes be prohibited?. Cunard (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Mommy Bear exits the cosy hibernation cave reluctantly with all her little socks in tow, after a refreshing, but too short, three-week wikinap.] I would always have resisted the proposal to outlaw joke banners, but the reason I've been so invested in it for years is that I have most often — no, only, really — come across the practice of aggressively removing those banners in a particular context: the sadistic piling on on a vulnerable user whenever he's been in hot water and thus an object of attention — a user whose last shred of wikipride the banner represents. (Don't ask me why it does, but it seems to be a fact, and empathy-challenged people who like attacking safe targets seem to be prepared to escalate the issue indefinitely and triumphantly.) See the user's recent talkpage history, and here's another example from 2007, when the user was called Certified.Gangsta. Compare Skomorokh's eloquent oppose. But I'll pass on your RFC, thank you. I'm tired of trying to argue on the level of "it's not funny", "it's irritating" etc. I admit it's in a way tempting to use the RFC to personally attack, bite, and eat a few users so full of themselves as to want joke message banners verboten on the principle that they waste valuable time which could otherwise have been spent improving the encyclopedia. On a slow connection, clicking on one of these banners and having the (apparently) peculiarly insulting experience of being misdirected to Practical joke could easily take up to eight or nine seconds, couldn't it! Just think of the encyclopedic improvements people could have been making in that time! And so many users have these fake banners on their pages (don't they?) that our editing will inevitably be continually disrupted as we're helplessly washed up, again and again, at Practical joke. I mean, how many usertalk pages are the bnners on? 60%, is it? 70%? It must be something like that, or surely nobody would care, or would they?

Where was I… oh. Yes, I was briefly tempted to weigh in. But I've depressed myself too much over the years reading these interminable "debates" on the subject, stretching back to the Big Bang, and I have shed my illusions that my input could make any difference. Another depressing factor is the hilariously non-neutral way you've introduced the RFC. Posting a selection of old comments in favour of banning these jokes, but nothing whatever of this nature? "Summarising" the arguments of people like me in the way you do? Seriously? Have you even looked at the instructions for talkpage RFCs?

Might those ever-renewed debates about the subject possibly waste any time which could have been spent improving the encyclopedia ? Could Bulwersator have a point about the bike shed? Or could all this activity in removing banners, which you, Cunard, so oddly list as an argument for your case (the existence of such activity is an argument for encouraging more such activity? How come?) take up any valuable potential editing time? These conundrums are left as an exercise to my page watchers. I'll be returning to the cave now. [To general relief, Mommy Bear tramples back to the cave to wait for the distant spring, her little socks padding after her. The biggest of them, baby Zilla, tries a cute, tiny roar.] Bishonen | talk 23:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Giano

Bishonen, can you not use your considerable powers of persuasion to get Giano to reconsider his retirement? The place will be "dullsville" without him. God knows the joint has already got as boring as an in-laws family reunion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi there Ms. Bishonen. I saw a couple posts and thought how great to see you active again. I miss ya. I'm really sorry for any health things you may be dealing with (and you have all my thoughts an prayers in that), but I didn't want to bother you with that silly orange banner either. I've always thought the world of you, and I love your sense of humor ... please tell all the little "bishes" I said hi. When you address real issues in regards to WP, you do it very well - and I take your words to heart. I'd very much like to see you more active, but I must respect your need to "hibernate". You have all my best wishes. — Ched : ? 23:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well. Very kind, I'm sure, Ched. Better not wake the bears, all they do is carry on about entering a new ice age and wishing they were polar bears because Giacomo left. Yeah, yeah. See evil response to Nobody Ent above. darwinbish ^BITE 19:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

WT:AC/N

My comment wasn't intended to imply that you had a history of being accused of incivility. I understand the general complaint against the civility enforcement paradigm to be that enforcement is uneven, often hypocritical, and utterly subjective. So it just struck me as interesting to see opponents of civility enforcement pointing out the incivility of a relatively mild comment. Calling out "screaming" makes some sense as an indictment of hypocrisy, but is a little odd (to me) as a genuine complaint. Nathan^T 17:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c, top-posting, sorry).You're a little odd (to me), but I'm sorry I called you a louse.[1] Don't wake Mommy Bear, please. Study the "woodlice" line art drawing above. Bishonen | talk 18:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You're not alone, I'm a little odd to a lot of people. I'm also a little out of practice at commenting in policy debates (or contributing to Wikipedia in any way, for that matter), and should have paid a little more attention to my phrasing. Best wishes for a quick recuperation! Nathan^T 18:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a complaint or was it simply an observation? Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting in part: "Please don't keep using "screaming" as a summary of arguments you don't like, Fluff. (You use the word too, Sandstein.) It's disrespectful, provocative, and contemptuous." I understood her comment to be a complaint, but I may have been incorrect. Nathan^T 18:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self requested block of old abandoned account

Hello, I have recently come across an old abandoned account of mine last edited in 2009 that happens bears my legal name, User:Phoenixbkelser was used for purposes I am ashamed of, I request to have it blocked indefinitely so I can never return to it, I do not want to ever return to it, I am 100% sure it was mine as it is my full fist and last name though its password I can not recall at the moment but may have it somewhere in the back of my mind. A block on that account would be helpful for me to move forward from that time, note my current account is older than User:Phoenixbkelser by two months, but the two where never used simultaneously. Regardless though, it was a brief part of my past that does not define me, today I am a better wikipedian, the best way for me to move forward is to confront my past with honesty, I will wait for your reply. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PB.333, I'm lurking on Bish's page hoping to see she's changed her mind, but right now she seems to have either scaled way back, or retired, depending on how you choose to read between the lines of the note at the top. But no matter which it is, she's no longer a sysop, having resigned the tools a while ago, so she can't block your former account. Would you like me to do this for you? I've looked into it a little, and it seems OK in an IAR kind of way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't think of a reason to wait to hear back from you, so done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've removed Bish's page from the admins willing to self-block category [2]. Nobody Ent 13:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should she still be an account creator as well? 138.162.8.58 (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 138.*, permissions are generally not removed from someone's account because they leave for an indeterminate time. Even the desysop was voluntary. No need to do anything more, I think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Fixes the impertinent IP with a chilly stare, and, just on general principles, bites Nobody Ent shrewdly on an unmentionable part. ] Plus, even though not editing (much), why mightn't 'shonen need to create a couple more socks, or five or six, to take care of loose ends? I'm getting a little tired of having to run the whole show single-handed, you know! (Signed) Darwinbish, acting CEO of the Bishonen conglomerate, 21:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. [Darwinbish checks out the IP's contributions, notices that they have Brad101's number down pat, is mollified.] OK, IP showed good sense here. Accusation of impertinence retracted without prejudice. darwinbish ^BITE 21:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Friend bearing gift

	Something nice for you
	Here is my ursine friend bringing you a nice fishy. Fishies promote healing. And they are crunchy. Love from Wolfie :o) Pesky (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Darwinbish is appalled.] Fishy? Crunchy ? Is that my little brother the monster is eating?? We're mostly all fish here, Wolf! Look at portraits, see for yourself! Don't eat sushi on this page! Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes! darwinbish ^BITE 14:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Bishapod the fishapod:

Darwinfish, good twin, silly minnow with feet:

Darwinbish, evil twin, highly evolved type of fish with feet:

Awww, it was meant to be a nice treat for Mommy Bear! (Wolfie gently hugs fishy socks.) Pesky (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Ungraciously.] "Mommy Bear" is a polar bear now, see top of page. Applies to all of Svalbard. Better give her a seal. darwinbish ^BITE 19:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

[Ched recalls distant memory] Are cupcakes still acceptable nourishment? — Ched : ? 19:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At RFCs mainly. [Strangely, nobody RFC'd teh darwinbish yet. Disappointed!] Well, and cupcakes that come with other people's weenie wikilove messages can be tasty. darwinbish ^BITE 23:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I think polar bears eat fish, too. But not special fishy sock-fishies, Pesky (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polar bears eat pretty much whatever the hell they want. I don't want to freak anyone out, so I won't post the picture, but... (Pesky, last chance, stop reading now)... they eat wolves, too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, they'll eat anything; they're not proud! Except, apparently, wolverines. I can't for the life of me think of the immediate citation (may have been Larousse), but some zoo or other decided that a wolverine and a polar bear could share the same sham-Arctic habitat area, provided that the wolverine had somewhere safe to escape from the bear. Next morning, the official result was Wolverines:1; Bears:0. The bear had nowhere safe to escape from the wolverine. Pesky (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Bish can always use more cupcakes. Best wishes, Jack... Buck 12:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]