Hello! I see you're online doing admin tasks and was wondering if you could block this IP {{IP|121.221.241.233}} who is disruptively blanking music pages without any explanation [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jack_Ingram&diff=837514707&oldid=837495963] and introducing deliberately inaccurate content [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Underwood_discography&diff=prev&oldid=837514474 see here]. No one seems to be watching the AIV page and they are getting disruptive. [[User:HickoryOughtShirt?4|HickoryOughtShirt?4]] ([[User talk:HickoryOughtShirt?4|talk]]) 09:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I see you're online doing admin tasks and was wondering if you could block this IP {{IP|121.221.241.233}} who is disruptively blanking music pages without any explanation [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jack_Ingram&diff=837514707&oldid=837495963] and introducing deliberately inaccurate content [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Underwood_discography&diff=prev&oldid=837514474 see here]. No one seems to be watching the AIV page and they are getting disruptive. [[User:HickoryOughtShirt?4|HickoryOughtShirt?4]] ([[User talk:HickoryOughtShirt?4|talk]]) 09:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
:{{done}}, 48 hours. {{ping|HickoryOughtShirt?4 }}I blinked when I saw you on my page just as my finger was poised to publish a post on yours, to thank you for your fast work at [[WP:UAA]]. You reported [[My giant penls in your vergina |this one]] in the same minute it was created, and I caught your UAA post directly from the top of my watchlist, so I had some hopes for the holy grail, i. e. a block logged in the same minute the account was created. But it was not to be; I was one minute late. The seconds were probably already running out. But some day we may pull it off! [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 09:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC).
Revision as of 09:44, 21 April 2018
I tought I taw a waterfall
I did, I did, I did see a waterfall. Hey, ah, this page could use an archiving a bit...maybe...if you want...up to you.--MONGO13:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, and I wanted to archive some trolls. You see the symbolism of the new image? Not that the princess looks a whole lot like me. Bishonen | talk14:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The trolls all know better than to besiege such a fair damsel...especially considering all the powerful friends and just plain mean, nasty MONGO-esque thugs that are about. How far that little candle throws its beams! So shine a good deed in a naughty world.--MONGO15:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen, et @MONGO: See, the daily-changing pics are coool :) but—very naughty I know to ask out of process—is it possible to have a similar thing on one's talk, but wit different pictures? If you can advise... Nice. Thanks! >SerialNumber54129...speculates07:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would use "invoke" only to refer to code that runs to do something. So one could invoke a function, a subroutine or an algorithm, but not a dataset. From what you're saying here, it sounds like you'd be connecting or linking or possibly querying a dataset (though some might object to "querying" if there's no actual query language involved). But then, as far as I know, there's no universal standard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, MPants at work We're not querying anything. We're invoking a function in a Lua module whose purpose is to pick the next filename in a list every day. That's all. No searching; no filtering; just the next one in the list.
@Serial Number 54129: As there may be more folks wanting to use the carousel, I've made a new version at Module:Carousel and allowed everybody to have their own list of filenames. Your list is at Module:Carousel/54129 and I've started you off by putting four filenames in there that I lifted from your page. There are instructions on how to change them and add more in the module.
You can edit your page notice (I think) to say something like:
[[File:{{#invoke:carousel | main | name=54129}} | upright=1.25 | center | thumb | Welcome to my page ... etc]]
which will result in
Welcome to my page ... etc
Change the size by fiddling with the upright parameter as usual. If there are any problems with that, 'Shonen is a fine coder and will fix it for you on request. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're not querying anything. We're invoking a function in a Lua module whose purpose is to pick the next filename in a list every day. Well, if there's a function in the module to pick the next image, then that makes sense. I hope your code is thoroughly commented and properly indented, else boring manager Rob will be along to tell you that while you may be very diligent, your output stink. ;P ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a function in the module to pick the next image; no "if" about it. My code is "thoroughly commented and properly indented", as you can see by examining Module:Carousel and its documentation – even you can read that. As for boring manager Rob, well I've been programming since his dad was in small trousers, so he can go fuck himself (my cheerful response to attempts from non-leet coders and script kiddies to criticise my work). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. You can dish it out but you can't take it, eh? For some unaccountable reason, I'm quite proud of the original work I do. Then you come along and throw insults at it - but that's just a joke, right? However, when I toss a couple of equally "playful" insults back, you accuse me of not being able to take a joke. Pot meet kettle. You need to get your head from out of your arse. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Chère, I should have mentioned that - by all means, carry on as normal using Module:RexxS. I created Module:Carousel/Shonen as an exemplar for others to follow, so no need to touch it. I also should have given you specific attribution - I'll go fix that now. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do me wrong to take me out o' the grave:
Thou art a soul in bliss; but I am bound
Upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears
Do scald like moulten lead.
I hope you saw my comments to you at AN/I and that they provided a little more understanding for where I was coming from, why I am willing to change my mind, etc. What you had to say to me caught my attention, but not as much as what Davey2010 had to say. Even so, it does bother me that you now think less of me, not because I will lose your support in the future, but because I think you have misunderstood my responses in regard to this issue, both at SJ's talk page and AN/I. Then again, I'm starting to wonder if, because of my deficiencies in grasping appropriate social communication, pragmatics, and nuance at times, I myself didn't misunderstand the whole situation from beginning to AN/I. I hope this makes sense and that we can still be "friends". -- ψλ ● ✉✓18:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, OK, Winkelvi. I just don't see much room for me misunderstanding this attack on MastCell. Are you saying it was really "fact- and reason-based", and I just misunderstood it? I've read Pesky's essay (just re-read it, in fact), and I still have trouble with several things you said in this context. But I honor your readiness to say you might have been the one who misunderstood. We're still friends. Bishonen | talk19:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I'm saying that in my own Aspergeriness that comes complete with a lack of good communication skills and at times not picking up on social/pragmatic cues, in addition to my non-Aspergers related right-brainedness, I was attempting to make lighter what appeared to be a mountain from molehill situation. I didn't agree with MastCell's take on SJ's comments and I really thought there was an over-abundance of sensitivity going on. At the time. Now, I think I may have been too hasty altogether. But initially, I was just trying to take what was a tense situation and try to inject some humor in light of what I've been seeing here and in social media on the topic of comments that are still just allegedly said, allegedly racist. People get soooo bent out of shape over dumb, petty stuff when communicating on the internet. It's disheartening and such a waste of energy. That's where I was coming from. Nothing sinister. -- ψλ ● ✉✓21:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've been hanging around here a lot this morning, but I just had to add this. Your comment there gave me a chill and made me laugh at the same time. That deserves a gold-trimmed hammer britches seal of approval with oak leaf clusters. I think I might have to make a "Hammer of the gods" barnstar, just to give it to you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For your unrivaled ability and willingness to kick ass and chew bubblegum,
and your amazing ability to consistently forget the bubblegum,
I hereby award you the
Solid Gold Hammer of the Gods barnstar, resplendent upon a golden field.
May your banhammer
be ever heavy
and ready to fly free.
Ha, my own Mjölner! Outstanding! ['shonen is flattered out of her senses. Looks around for somebody, anybody, to throw her shiny new åskvigg at.] Thank you very much, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. You're very clever with images! Bishonen | talk22:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Might not be the same with every browser and skin, but the Impact font line was slightly too close the the previous. I hope you don't mind; I've increased the line-height of that line by 0.4em to balance it. See what you think. --RexxS (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW on my antique browser I don’t see any “golden field”, just a thin gold border, and the box hangs off the right edge of the page such that the word “chew” in the first line ends at the left-hand edge of the light-grey right marginal area. The horizontal space between the graphic and the type is at least as wide as the first line of text.—Odysseus147905:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The styling in the div uses some (relatively) modern CSS that a much older browser might not display properly. Not being a web guy, I don't know off the top of my head quite how to make alt versions without using media queries, which I'm pretty sure I can't do in a style="" attribute. But I might be able to add in some deprecated CSS properties or something. @Odysseus1479: could I trouble you for a screenshot and the details of your browser? (You can get the exact version number by finding the "help" menu and choosing "about".) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I no longer expect my setup (Safari v5.1.10 on Mac OS 10.6 “Snow Leopard” —BTW on a Mac every program has a self-titled menu, first on the left after the Apple menu, and where the About is normally found), to be well supported, rather I’m impressed that most features of the WMF sites continue to work fairly well, the only problems I’ve noticed being more or less cosmetic. Anyway, I see the gold background now, and the main text is better positioned, fairly central, with the glow effect also showing. However, the box itself still the same size, protruding past the right margin, and the “May your …” text, which was previously superimposed on the image, is now near the right-hand edge of the box (such that I have to scroll my window rightward to read it), leaving a wide empty space between it and the main block. @MjolnirPants: I’ve sent you a message, but without screenshots because the “Email this user” form doesn’t seem to allow for attachments.—Odysseus147921:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Responded via email so as not to clutter up Bish's page too much. Suffice it to say the size problem is actually intentional, and I plan on scaling the whole thing down before making a real template of it, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.22:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you double check and make sure I did everything properly in this merge? I think I did but I would appreciate a double check to make sure I didn't screw anything up. Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased my username tricked you into thinking I must know something about manga and anime, Tarage! :-) That's far from the case. But I took a look, and your merge looks fine AFAICS. I did a small superficial copyedit (you want to lose the bold when you merge). Nice job! Bishonen | talk22:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Oh no, I wasn't tricked. I just figured I'd apply the old "When in doubt, ask an administrator you trust" policy. The rest was just a coincidence. Thanks for the double check/copy edit. --Tarage (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editing problems
Hi Bishonen. I was editing my own sandbox and I noticed that the Architecture and Cuisine sections and the contents for Sports were missing [1]. When I click to publish the changes, there is a lot of missing contents. I think there is a bug or technical problem but I'm not entirely sure. (N0n3up (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Not sure I understand, N0n3up. Did you copy an existing article, or part of one, into your sandbox, intending to edit it there? I presume that was it, since the history of your sandbox shows you added all the content at one time. Doesn't seem to have been Culture of Peru. Parts of Peru..? Maybe I could help if you told me where you got the text from, and why you expected it to have those sections. Bishonen | talk13:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
In the 60s and 70s and onwards, numerous artists contributed and still contribute to modern Peruvian art including Teresa Burga, a non-objectualist artists, sculptureCristina Gálvez<ref>{{cite book|last1=Wuffarden, [[Jorge Eduardo Eielson]], [[Jorge Piqueras]], [[Eduardo Tokeshi]] and [[Elena Tejada-Herrera]]. In the field of photography, [[Martín Chambi]] and [[Mario Testino]] made major contributions.
The result being that nothing was displayed until the next closing </ref> tag. Just add }}</ref> somewhere near the end of that paragraph and your text will reappear. --RexxS (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Daivadnya Brahmin
I am struggling against what appears to be a member of the caste at Daivadnya Brahmin. Their talk page suggests a troubled past and I've just added a sanctions alert but I have also previously warned them and tried to explain why this is inappropriate. I am reluctant to revert yet that edit yet again because this is turning into a slow-burn edit war. - Sitush (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see NeilN has blocked them for 24 hours, and also, perhaps more importantly, poked them about the need to self-identify re caste. Bishonen | talk22:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks to you and NeilN. I apologise for pestering: I am trying to spread this caste-related stuff around various admins but some are not particularly active at present and, of course, a lot would much rather shy away from the entire topic area (not intended as a criticism of them). - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush and Hindi-speaking talkpage stalkers, what about this recent edit after the block, where they removed the sentence "Daivadnya Brahmins in the state of Karnataka are classified by National Commission for Backward Classes as an Other Backward Class" and its two sources? He says they're "fake citations". I dunno. The first footnote doesn't in fact list Daivadnya Brahmin, unless one wants to be really liberal about what they might also be called, and the second is in Hindi. I'm sure your guy doesn't like the sentence, but is he right about the sources? Bishonen | talk19:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Item 161 in the English-language sourced list - Daivagna. Alternate spelling, I think. I'm not sure that the information should be in the lead section, though, but the entire article is a mess. - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Well, the user can't be blamed for not finding the alternate spelling, I suppose, but it should presumably be put back, somewhere. Or so I suppose. Yeah, I see the article is a mess... ugh... I didn't actually read it before. Depressing. Should it be stubbified? I suppose there'd be outrage in the caste forums. Bishonen | talk20:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I have struggled to get the thing into order because of the sheer number of non-English sources. I suspect many of them are caste-affiliated and thus fail WP:RS for most statements where they are cited. Proving it is another matter. As for the remover of the statement, well, I'd put money on them knowing it as an alternate spelling but I appreciate the caution. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever my input may be worth, I think you're right in calling for a clear close. I also think you are correct in the indefinite length. What concerns me is that I also think a prior pattern of gaming behavior is already playing out. Unscintillating has been called on their AfD disruption before. Each time it has previously happened, when the heat finally gets turned up to an uncomfortable level, they appear to flee the scene. Almost always this lasts no more than a month or two (with a longish 2015 absence that seems unrelated) and they then return to bothering and bewildering other editors in AfD-land. I am worried that their current three-day disappearing act after the sense of that thread quickly started to form is their way of again attempting to game the restriction. I would not be at all surprised for them to, in the very near term, strenuously claim that their restriction is unfair since they "were not able to respond". On the other hand, I don't know that there would be any benefit to expressing that suspicion in the thread so I have refrained from doing so. Do you think this is something that needs to be said or will the closing admin and whoever sees the inevitable appeals will be aware of this already? Thanks. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)21:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand the point of the "Analysis" you link to. Are you saying U has disappeared before when the heat got turned up, and has been given a restriction in absentia, and has gamed it? I'm not aware of any community restriction he ever had — hang on, I'll check here — no, nothing there. Anyway, no, I don't think there would be any benefit to expressing suspicions about U's still-to-come-or-maybe-not appeal. Not at all. Please don't do it. On the other hand, there might be a real risk of an admin closing the discussion with "Since the user is apparently taking a break, let's leave this until they return". It wouldn't be right, IMO, after all the trouble people have taken to have a discussion and sharing their experiences. But, well, I guess it could still happen. I remember once... never mind. So if you want to post to point out that the user does make a habit of disappearing when he's under fire, and that we nevertheless need a close per the consensus of the discussion, then I think that would be helpful. I for one wasn't aware that U has disappeared in a similar way before. You'd better link to at least one example. Like I said, the "Analysis" page didn't do anything for me — I'm stupid with those things, but other people may be too. Probably it's not actually necessary for you to post, though, if it's time-consuming. I don't think I'm the only one who'll make a fuss if the ANI thread is closed without a reasonable restriction. Bishonen | talk23:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
It all got very messy with PAKHIGHWAY and I lost track of whether they were formally topic banned, merely warned or got away with it all. Can you remember or work it out? I am concerned because of this. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Reluctantly remembers.) Ah, yes. I can't find any ban — I've checked WP:CASTE, WP:RESTRICT, and WP:DSLOG. They got indeffed in September, though, and were unblocked after a few days.[2] See here for block by John, followed by declined great big long unblock request, followed by second, accepted, great big long unblock request, with more discussion below. I remember how snarky they were about my warning, just above the block notice, but that's water under the bridge. The thing that's of interest is presumably the undertakings they made in the successful unblock request and below it: "I will not call out editors based on nationality from now on." AFAICS they didn't do that at Talk:Bhat. But I admit I lost focus a little, reading all the stuff on their talkpage. Bishonen | talk20:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The last few days at the punk rock article an unregistered editor has been repeatedly making the same bad edit in the lead section from different IP addresses. Despite being blocked from some of them, the vandal persists. I was wondering if we could put semi-protection on the page, at least for a while, until the problem subsides. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Garagepunk66. I recognize that; the same vandal has been a problem over many pages, see this ANI thread. The IPv6 ranges have been blocked for a month by NeilN, and I have now blocked 99.203.11.112 for a month as well. I'll hold off on semi for now, but please let me know if other IPs arrive. Bishonen | talk04:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
See the ANI thread I linked to, Garagepunk66: it's not a troll, it's a self-promoter. Unfortunately those don't get tired as quickly, sometimes never. But I'm encouraged by NeilN's suggestion of a filter if it continues. Bishonen | talk10:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Utkala Brahmin
I think Utkala Brahmin would benefit from your ministrations. Repeated big changes based on a caste-affiliated source. I'm guessing that the anon of a few hours ago has now registered an account. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~Oh, I am quite the regular on this page. Bish and I practically take tea here most days, and most enjoyable it is, too. - Sitush (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A short semi-protection at Jogi, pretty please? Anons reinstating info that is either (a) copyvio or (b) unreliable - it doesn't really matter which but someone has (correctly) explained the issues on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like just two IPs (= one person, undoubtedly) recently, Sitush, and I've blocked them for 72 hours. Please come back if it still seems to need semi. And have a glass of refreshing lemon balm tea! Bishonen | talk17:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure either, actually. I thought more it looked aesthetically pleasing with all the greenery. My real favorite is jasmine tea. also pretty! Oh look, it's Adhela and Guy Fawkes in the edit notice now! Touching representation of tender motherhood! Better than having a shitlist of enemies in the edit notice, isn't it. Bishonen | talk00:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Ah, I now realise what it was that you were referencing. Bizarre but then there has been much drama percolating in that area of late. - Sitush (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt on page deletion: Upasana RC
Hi,
The log for the page Upasana RC states that you deleted it. I remember putting in references for articles onto the page. Was there anything else wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishant.jeyanth (talk • contribs)
Hi, User:Nishant.jeyanth. There weren't any references about the subject, you know. I see you put in external links to GRT Jewellers and Chennai silks in the sentence "She got featured in various Tamil print and TVC from brands like GRT Jewellers, Chennai Silks." But they were just links to the websites of these brands (well, in the case of Chennai, not even that, really), nothing about Upasana RC. That's kind of pointless. Biographical articles need sourcing about the person, which shows the person is notable. Also, when you mention "references for articles", do you mean you added wikilinks, to Wikipedia articles? That's not sourcing at all, I'm afraid. We can't use Wikipedia as a source, it would be like a cat chasing its own tail.
If you would like to work on the article, and look for some better sources according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, I can put the text on a page in your userspace if you like. Nobody will delete it there, as long as it doesn't linger for too long. If you work on it with reasonable speed, it'll be fine. You don't have to worry about turning the references into proper footnotes, I can fix that for you, if you ask. BTW, please sign posts on talkpages by typing four tildes, ~~~~ , which will turn automatically into your name and a timestamp when you save. Bishonen | talk12:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Ronz, it seems rather extraordinary that this Seattle Times article is used as a source no less than 19 times in the article, for all sort of harmless details (Jain grew up in Uttar Pradesh, he got an engineering degree from Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, he looked up to Bill Gates, he joined Microsoft in 1989, etc) — and yet what I would call the meat of the Seattle Times article is scarcely mentioned at all: the trickery and deception by Jain that the paper's investigation uncovered. The description of that is full of facts, as far as I understand facts in this field, and it doesn't pull any punches. Very long article, too — I have to stop reading now and go to bed — I'll look more closely tomorrow, and at other sources. But my sense right now is that the Seattle Times source is used in a very superficial way. I'll check some other sources tomorrow, as I suppose there may be those that don't necessarily imply Jain has been dishonest and ruthless, or that he has tricked investors and shareholders. Is there a problem at the article? I got the impression at BLPN that there might be some promotional pressure on it, and attempts to remove sourced negative information. Is that the case? Anyway, bed now. Bishonen | talk00:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
"Some promotional pressure" doesn't begin to describe it. Some of the worst coi problems I've seen, and continued SPA/BATTLE problems for some ten years now. The most recent SPA was blocked just a few weeks ago after just five total edits, Mike in il (talk·contribs). --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm an admin, I'm polite! (Some of the time.) I only read the post on BLPN, which worried me, since accusations of COI against editors who try to resist promotion, like you, usually only mean one thing. I see that user has now posted again, in a different tone. What do you think? Do you want to reply there? Bishonen | talk09:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I appreciate your comments. I'm treating the article as a location of disputes that will eventually go to ArbCom. I'm trying to tread softly, be polite, and protect myself. The results are as you describe, reliable sources are used in a very superficial way. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Ronz, the posts from Jimbo to you in 2012 that Mike in il had dug up here are amazing! Now there's promotional pressure! "I know you hate Naveen Jain". Nice. If it wasn't four years ago, I'd ask Jimbo if Jain is a friend of his, because accusations like that usually do, yes, mean one thing. Bishonen | talk17:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
We asked Jimbo about his relationship with Jain. If I recall correctly, Jimbo was contacted by Jain directly concerning the articles, but didn't know Jain previously other than in passing at some event they both attended. -Ronz (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, technically it is an AE action, so it will need to be appealed (though I am pretty confident it would be granted). The quickest route at this point would be to file an AE appeal request. Also, Bish, nice mountain today :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm known for making sense, esp. if it involves a. not following proper procedure and b. just doing what smarter people suggest someone should do. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still, EEng, I think it would be a good idea, perhaps even a grand idea, if you let that one go. You know I appreciated one of your comments, but the stirring one, not so much. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
A tagwill now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardizededitnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
I can see how the unsourced condition of the article makes it harder for the IP to understand why they can't add what they want. Semi'd for a week. Bishonen | talk16:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, indeed. I've updated the talk page. Somewhere, some time in the past, I wrote a footnote in another article about a related use of a term that is similarly pronounced but spelled slightly differently and I have a feeling it does in fact relate to this community ... but I am blowed if I can remember which article it was and therefore do something about it. I think it was something related to temple servants and have made a note here so that if I do come across it again (probably when someone screws up at that article, causing it to appear on my watchlist) then it will be picked up. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
12Dagge
Hi. I wonder if you could check the user 12Dagge and his contributions here on enwp. When I saw he got an article deleted and warned for the content, and he was warned in August I checked all his contributions. Almost all were reverted. I wrote a comment to him about that here, but thinks it would be good if an admin on enwp looked at it. Best regards, Adville (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that the user is a net negative here, Adville. He doesn't edit much, but, well, there's nothing helpful there. The worst thing he has done since Neutrality's "final warning" on 17 August 2017 is indeed the recreation of Tobias Hübinette as a pure attack page on 25 January 2018. And that's pretty bad. Yes, I'll block. Thank you for alerting me. Bishonen | talk21:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry I never got to this, Leo. The fact is I have a tendency to avoid airport articles. I just dislike them. The disagreements about them never seem interesting, somehow. Sorry. Bishonen | talk21:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I think you mean Courcelles? They reverted the spam additions. Anyway, thank you for the report. As I've just said on ANI, I may take almost too much pleasure in slashing and burning that kind of prose. 😈 Bishonen | talk21:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Vaishya
You made me jump with the pic of the bison. Any change of a short semi-protection at Vaishya? A hopping anon keeps inserting a name that is not in the source and does so despite the inline note asking that people desist from adding to the list of examples. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did what Jytdog asked, MjolnirPants. He wanted to avoid "drama" there. But he can change his mind any time, and I rather wish he would. He has done a lot for Wikipedia, to keep the wolf (the PR firms) from the door, and gotten scant thanks for it, and it's certainly frustrating if people can't even add a note to his page. I'm upset about this. :-( Bishonen | talk06:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, I was just making sure. Full protection of a user talk page is one of those things that raises a few eyebrows. But if it's at the user's request, who am I to argue with it? I agree with you. Me and Jytdog butt heads almost as often as we see eye-to-eye, but IMHO he's a damn good editor who does a lot of good for the project, and is a joy to work with every time we get together to improve something. I probably don't tell him that as often as I should, and now I can't, for the foreseeable future. :( ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove full protection of JYTDog's user talk immediately. These are not privately owned pages, they are part of the Wikipedia communication process. He doesn't have the right to determine that "administrators only" can talk to him, nor do you have the right to enable this decision for him. Policy is quite clear on this matter.
Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier.
Users have always been considered by the community to have to right to request others not to edit their talk pages. Full protection amounts to a request to the entire community not to edit their talk page. The policy you quoted does not explicitly forbid full protection of user talk pages, so it's not applicable. Besides, community consensus trumps policy every day because policy is decided by community consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is an absolute misreading of policy and I had to pick the same thing out of my teeth once at AN/I when I was trying to get somebody not to use my page, so I know whereof I speak. Hopefully this out-of-policy lockout of all but the administrative caste from a user-talk page will be ended without escalation to that. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that only admins can communicate with him, it's that he doesn't want anyone to communicate with him. FYI, this is all about this and ongoing discussions here. SmartSE (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bish - hope you're doing well. Just kind of thinking out loud here - but IIRC, there were a few issues with user talk pages being protected some time ago (maybe 2012 - 2014ish?) and after some discussions at various notice boards it was decided(?) that a user could protect (or request protection) under the stipulation that a secondary page be established that common users could use to communicate (or at least leave a "non-vandalismish" or NPA message). I don't recall if it was ever codified - but just something in the back of all too foggy mind regarding an administrator who suddenly protected his talk page because people didn't like his sig. or something like that. Sorry I can't recall the specifics - but it may be a solution to this situation which is sure to escalate if some mitigating steps aren't at least discussed. On a side note - I do admit that you're one of the good folks that I do miss interacting with on Wiki Bish - say hello to the whole family for me. :-) — Ched : ? — 15:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users. [My underline emphasis]
A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page.
User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively.
Additionally, the full protection of a user talk page is highly irregular and there is arguably nothing under the policy that allows for it as nearly everything in the full protection section contemplates use of the corresponding talk page. They are also not used pre-emptively. Thank you for taking this into consideration. I should add that I understand Jytdog's desire for wanting peace and privacy, but from both a practical and policy perspective, the full protection of their user talk page is problematic. Mkdwtalk16:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
per my last comments here in WP at the bottom of the ANI here, I am done here. I emailed Bish to let them know and to ask them to fully protect my user and talk pages so nobody would have to mind it for vandalism and so there would be no drama. But sure enough... drama.
Bish, thanks for being helpful and sorry for the trouble. Please go ahead and unprotect it so that people will maybe go do something useful. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hi, Ched, nice to see you. The point here is that Jytdog has left, so he's beyond collaboration at this time. Bah, Carrite. The pages "exist to make collaboration among editors easier" — yes — I'm sorry it wasn't clear above that Jytdog has left. Or only indirectly. His final message is here. If he returns, I'll consider unprotecting so he can collaborate some more. Also, no, it's not the case that "administrators only" can talk to him. Please note my edit summary for the talkpage protection: "User request. Please don't post on this page." Of course any reasonable admin will respect that, as they normally do when any page is fullprotected. It's kind of difficult to post my reply when more people keep chiming in - but what are you talking about, Mkdw? He doesn't continue to edit Wikipedia. He has e-mailed me to say he's gone, and asking me to protect his pages. And now edit conflict with Jytdog, too — shit — please don't post, Jytdog. You're wrongfooting me. If you do it again, I probably should unprotect your talk. Bishonen | talk16:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, you should unprotect his talk at once. He has not left and that communication channel is not his to open and close by snapping his fingers at a friendly administrator. Per policy. Please respect the rule of law, weak though it is at WP. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I need to think about it for a bit. Carrite, kindly take your big voice elsewhere. (To ANI or RFAR, if you like.) I'm tired of you booming "immediately" and "at once" here, and don't call me a fucking friendly administrator. Bishonen | talk16:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Wow, just wow. Jytdog could still be reached via email I suppose...and its likely safe to assume the protection was temporary of course. What a cauldron. For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.--MONGO16:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication on Jytdog's talk page, user page, or in the protection log that he has retired from Wikipedia. His talk page still includes "click here to leave a new message" at the top. DuncanHill (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Bish TP stalker) If Jytdog plans on a long break, I think full protection is actually a pretty good IAR way to lower the temperature. If he's sticking around, not so much. Let's call last night's edits to ANI - and today's edits to this page - false starts, and keep the full protection unless and until Jytdog edits any other page, and unprotect then? (also, while I'm here... Hi User:Ched! And nice picture, User:MONGO!) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's going to remain fully protected, then can someone remove the "click here to leave a new message" thing, and add a clear message at the top that a) Jytdog has retired, and b) it must be unprotected if he edits again? DuncanHill (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not planning to jump into this further, but this action seems to be in line with the spirit of WP:NOBAN (which I haven’t seen linked yet). You can request that anyone not post on your user talk page, but you cannot a avoid notice of administrative actions. Admins can still technically post if need be, so there doesn’t appeared to be any problem with the protection (though unfortunate) as-is. Seems like a better to leave things be situation now that what’s done is done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, the issues are resolved and I am no longer gone. Would you please unprotect my pages? I will wait to resume editing until people can talk with me at my talk page. thank you again. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say that I think that Bish did the right thing here. As for the "rules", rules are never more important than treating editors with respect. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm getting the order wrong - but did want to pop in and say hello to a trusted friend. This really should have preceded my jumping into a conversation. I do hope you and the entire Bish family are doing great. I'm guessing they are still around as well? Anyway - good to see you. :) — Ched : ? — 12:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, Ched, lovely to see you! The family is just fine, indeed Darwinbish is starting to think it's too small, and aims to create a new sock "Dantebish", see here and here. As regards the protection of a user talkpage: I was complained of once, and in fact taken to RFAR, for unprotecting a user talkpage. It's a bit like the monkeys typing Shakespeare's collected plays, you know. I mean, if you stick around long enough in this place, everything happens. (Also, hey, shouldn't those monkeys be mentioned as candidates at Shakespeare authorship question? Pinging Tom Reedy.) Bishonen | talk16:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
As shop steward for the Union of Infinite Monkeys, I am stating our intention to go on strike for shorter infinite working hours. For now, one of my members has asked me to pass on his latest work to you:
Two arseholes, both alike in dignity,
In Wikipedia, where we lay our scene,
From recent grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil words unclean.
From forth the fatal keys of these two foes
A pair of cross editors take their leave;
Whole misreported comical overthrows
Do with their absence cause us all to grieve.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd posts,
And the continuance of the admins' rage,
Which, but the edits' end, nought could remove,
Is now the two weeks' traffic of our stage;
The which if you with flapping ears attend,
What here shall miss, we chimps shall strive to mend.
I haven't blocked the IP you're currently posting from. If you want information about a block, you'd better tell me what IP it concerns, so I know what this is about. Bishonen | talk15:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Aha, the Nordic Resistance Movement, right. I didn't block because your IP changes, per se, but because you were blocked on one IP and evaded that block on another. You used the IP 85.167.120.156 on 10 and 11 February to edit Nordic Resistance Movement, for which you were blocked for 31 hours for "disruption, edit warring, website spamming, unsourced edits". See the block log as well as that IP's talkpage. A block applies to the person, not just a single, apparently highly dynamic, IP, because that would be pointless. You, you the person, were blocked, and while you were still blocked you edited the article again, from a different IP. That's block evasion. Block evasion is easy from dynamic IPs, but that doesn't mean it's allowed. If you took ownership of your editing by creating an account (or using the account you have), this wouldn't happen, and if you didn't edit disruptively, it also wouldn't happen. Bishonen | talk23:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Also, are you sure you meant 85.167.120.156? I didn't block that for block evasion, or ever block it at all. Drmies blocked it, see links above. I blocked 85.167.55.190. For block evasion. Bishonen | talk11:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Hehe, glad you liked it, L3X1. :-) The reliable source was actually Guy's comment in the thread. I'd never heard "blockinated" before (only "banninated"). Bishonen | talk21:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
All too modern for me. But I was just admiring Hieronymus Bosch's platypus secret agent on skates in The Garden of Earthly Delights. Bishonen | talk21:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
"Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Willy on Wheels~enwiki" does not exist. Please use this link to create the category page (The page will be pre-loaded. All you need to do is save it)
Thanks, Leo. I'll take care of it after breakfast; I'm too hungry to do that fiddly tagging etc right now. I've changed your header, as it was the same as the one above, which messes with navigation. Bishonen | talk10:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Not sure about the town, but that's MONGO riding the storm! Hmm.. you say there's nobody there? Well, in the 18th century, when I was born, they used to see people and figures in the clouds all the time, sometimes whole armies on horseback. So, yeah, I see MONGO up there. Bishonen | talk15:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the semi, Vanamonde. You need to stop lying about your age, Bish, pretending to be younger than you actually are. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't have any personal investment in the article or the AfD, but I thought consensus was very clear. And that's even before considering the quality of the arguments — with that consideration, it becomes clearer still. In my opinion. Anyway, I've posted at DR. Bishonen | talk20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Bishonen. You salted Priya Prakash Varrier after the AfD on it, which seems quite reasonable based on the AfD and promotional nonsense that was going on, but she seems to have become a lot more notable in the last day. In fact the deleted article is on the list of the most hit articles. I guess this could be some attempt to trick us but it seems more likely to be due to a court case which is getting a lot of news coverage in India right now. See Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Redlink in top 25 traffic report. It is probably too soon to make an article, as this may be a flash in the pan, but would you be amenable to redirecting to Oru Adaar Love which is the article about the film she is in, and which the court case is about, so that all the people hitting the URL at least get something relevant to what they are interested in? If nothing else, I'd hate for large numbers of people to Google her, see the Wikipedia link, click it, see that the article is gone and then think that there is something dodgy going on. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the change. I should have started out here, but got a little confused about the roles of you and another admin in this case – he didn't close or protect, but did reply to my request on the talkpage – my error entirely and I'll take this as a learning experience if this comes up again ☆ Bri (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush isn't an admin, so I guess you're still confused. Yes, if you'd started out something like Daniel it would have been better for the goal you wanted to achieve and also for the tone of this place and its boards. FYI, neither Sitush nor I are "spiteful"; we do the best we can for the encyclopedia. If you're taking this as a learning experience, I'm glad. Bishonen | talk23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Yup, egg on face. "Spiteful" wasn't the best choice of words, maybe "punitive" was closer to what was intended. I'll be more careful in future. Hope I didn't cause hard feelings ☆ Bri (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if people who pass practically drive-by comment on India-related stuff actually tried editing it then they might gain a better understanding of why things are as they are. For the record, neither me nor Bish are "punitive". - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what your saying is...
Well first of all, I liked the picture in the edit notice. @Bishonen: I noticed you have closed a conversation today, I almost figured by his messages that he would be gone until Sunday, then I'd get a response. But that's not my main point. Considering you said that "FWIW it doesn't sound to me like there's anything you need to do.", that means I'm done with this whole thing. Now do you think I approached it correctly?Thanks Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 15:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: Sorry, meant to say "how did I handle the situation on User:Situshes page". Just figured an opinion would help, becausethat ended up being the longest conversation I've ever had (except the map talk on VPT, it's longer because I inserted a mansion's worth of wiki-code there), and so I consider it a major step. Thanks in advance :).
To be brutally frank, Zanygenius, I think you talked too much on Sitush's page, especially since he had said he was going to be busy. That was your cue to slow down. It's overwhelming for any volunteer editor (as we all are) to find so many questions and comments on their page when they log in after a pause, and that was why I closed the discussion. My advice is to keep posts brief and not post again until you get a reply. That way, you won't be stressing anybody out. Bishonen | talk22:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Abhinav686 (talk·contribs) is repeatedly reinstating unsourced content at various articles and, when reverted, going to the reverter's talk page to spout their qualifications to do so etc. The edits to Upper Caste are particularly poor.
They're new, they're misguided etc but even when things are explained - as in response to their post on my talk page - they seem to be continuing in the same vein. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: Good. Their Wikipedia future doesn't look bright, I guess. So they're aware of your talkpage and also of article talkpages. Surely of their own talkpage, then? And yet have not done the normal unblock request on it, instead going straight to UTRS, which usually takes more than 24 hours. Oh well, we'll see. (BTW I know what "obc" means, or so I thought, but aren't they using it rather oddly?) Bishonen | talk12:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Do you mean phrases such as Upper caste general obc? "Upper caste" is a somewhat vague term, however a community can be of high ritual standing but still traditionally impoverished/lacking in opportunities and officially recognised as OBC. "General" confuses things even further because in the form "General Class" it is another term for Forward Caste. I've no idea what they meant and, tbh, only skimmed the rant they kept reinstating at that article and its talk page. Sometimes it is not necessary for me to digest every word in order to figure out that we do not want it. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (wow I took a lot time to type this in!) Yeah, you seem to be offline. Missed you by seconds I guess. Katie took care of it btw. Thanks again :) This is the third attempt. I didnt hit "publish" while the tab was still open. —usernamekiran(talk)13:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cahk. Correcting the misspelling (their own), thereby breaking the links... and further promotion in edit summaries... It's not heinous, but I suppose I'd better revoke tpa, yes. Something new every day in this place. Bishonen | talk10:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Miller
Hi, I raised the issue on the BLP board because the discussion was about the issue of whether to quote Eliana Johnson/Nick Riccardi/Podhoretz. Should I have mentioned it on RS/N because that was where discussion about Salon & Wolff was opened? NPalgan2 (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my note on your page, which I just posted before I saw this. Yes, you should have kept it on one noticeboard at the most — please don't keep people running between several pages. Also, what's wrong with the lively discussion on article talk, and your own RFC there? If you don't think that's sufficient, I recommend moderated dispute resolution. Bishonen | talk22:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict)This issue is getting discussed in way too many venues. And I say that as someone who is at least slightly sympathetic to your initial concerns. My suggestion would be that we close all of the discussions and open a broad discussion somewhere about our use of obviously negative descriptors for political persons covered by BLP. There appears to be very little consistency in the way this is being handled and that's a problem. You are not the first editor to note what looks like de facto different standards for subjects on the right and left. But this needs to be done right and we really need to have just one discussion that addresses not just Miller in isolation but the way we deal with negative labels in BLPs of politically controversial figures. My gut says BLP is the best venue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. It's of a different character: moderated discussion. Please make sure you follow the instructions there, and note that other people don't have to take part unless they want to. Bishonen | talk23:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
If you find time for it could you take a look at the canvassing and votestacking situation at the AfD for Annika Connor. User Softlavender has pinged two editors [5] and also asked editor DGG on his talk page to come to the AfD to !vote. Especially the talk page message is basically begging for a Delete !vote [6]. I might be overreacting but I find it weird that three editors are basically told to vote at an AfD by one editor. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annika Connor.BabbaQ (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bish -- I've already answered all of BabbaQ's concerns several times over. I don't know why they seem to think I "told" three editors to !vote in an AfD, especially when all three editors I neutrally and briefly contacted (via ping or usertalk) are highly respected administrators with a lot of experience at AfD, and two of them (Megalibrarygirl and Cullen328) specialize in rescuing articles at AfD – in particular, rescuing articles on women and/or artists. Cullen328 also responded to BabbaQ on that AfD, but was ignored. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editor :@Dennis Bratland: asked you yesterday to not continue what he percieved as canvassing. Today you contact editor DGG, asking him to join in. The results so far Delete, Delete, Weak Keep. I find this suspicious but could let it slide this time, but you as an experienced editor are fully aware that contacting editors for an AfD is inapproriate at best and canvassing at worst. Also that editor Cullen etc might not consider themselves canvassed doesn't really matter since they did join the AfD after you asked them to.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained at least seven or eight times that pinging two knowledgeable, neutral, and respected administrators who specialize in rescuing articles at AfD, in particular, rescuing articles on women and/or artists is not canvassing. I've explained at least three or four times that leaving a neutral notice on DGG's talkpage was in no way inappropriate. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not easy to predict in marginal cases whether I will argue for or against a deletion. I am interested in exactly those marginal cases, in the hope of better defining the standards, and I am very grateful for anyone who call my attention to them.When I go there, I use my own judgment. Whether or not the notice is worded neutrally, when I am asked to look at an afd,I do not initially pay any attention to who said what, but look at the article, and see what I think of it myself. I write my preliminary response, and then I look to see if any arguments in the other direction need to be taken account of. My talk p will show many examples of people who hope for support but where in the upshot I think otherwise, and vice-versa--in fact the very last response I wrote to someone else was just that. DGG ( talk ) 10:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue here is Softlavender contacting you on your talk page basically asking you to !vote. And that you then within hours did just that. Not how you voted, though the result Delete, Delete, Weak Keep amongst the three contacted editors are quite telling. You are not at fault here DGG, just wanted to point that out if you felt accused.BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:APPNOTE, and please note that as I explained on the AfD, DGG is an administrator who deals widely with AfDs and my message was neutral and mentioned only that the AfD was contentious. If the rhetoric by the IP and Dennis Brantland had not occurred, and the repeated accusations of canvassing made by you and Dennis had not occurred, I would not have felt to call on another administrator for additional clarity, but because of all that noise on this AfD, I felt that the administrator with the most experience with AfDs of any admin (and an ArbCom member to boot) would bring a careful eye to the matter. In terms of your assertion that "the result Delete, Delete, Weak Keep amongst the three contacted editors are quite telling": So if all three highly experienced administrators had !voted "Strong Keep" you would not have made these accusations (repeated nine times so far)? That is what is "quite telling". Softlavender (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I am stating facts not making accusations. Secondly, what my response would have been if it was Keep is irrelevant since you are the one cantacting these editors. The only response I have is, I doubt you would have contacted these three particular editors if you suspected their votes would have been Keep, Keep, Weak Delete. This battleground tactics does not work in your favour, quite the opposite. If two of them asserts that they made a objective review then that's fine, but it still does not change the fact that you contacted them specifically for this particular AfD. Both myself and Dennis Bratland has tried to reason with you, with the only response that you do not see any problem with this canvassing. Let's leave it at that. I have made myself and my stance perfectly clear, so I will not continue this discussion any further.BabbaQ (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are making repeated accusations of WP:CANVASSING and failing to discern the difference between WP:APPNOTE and WP:CANVASSING, as I've already mentioned to you at least three times. Furthermore you are engaging in blatant mind-reading in baffling contradiction to my repeatedly informing you that both Megalibrarygirl and Cullen328SPECIALIZE IN THE AFD WP:RESCUE OF ARTICLES ON ARTISTS/WOMEN, WHICH IS WHY I REQUESTED THEIR INPUT. The fact that you are digging in on your stance rather than taking that in, and you are instead harping repeatedly on the fact that they did not all uniformly !vote Keep is rather obvious confirmation that what you don't like is that they didn't all 100% agree with you. I really don't see any other way to interpret that, given that you have ignored both their history and Cullen's response to you and you have also repeatedly brought up how they happened to !vote on this particular AfD. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My position on this kerfuffle is the same as DGG's. In my nine years on this project, nobody has made a credible claim that I am a deletionist. I learn about interesting and controversial AfDs in many ways and if I think that anyone is trying to influence my decision, I do not participate. I considered the ping to be a neutral notification. Cullen328Let's discuss it16:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Bratland sums the situation up well here. Sadly non of you three seem to understand the issue at hand. You can not unring the bell. BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, guys, sorry I was away. The putative canvassing is a borderline thing IMO. Softlavender seems surprisingly unaware of how it looks, to put it no more strongly, to ping people to an AfD. I don't know Cullen or Megalibrarygirl (or AfD) well enough to have an opinion as to whether they specialize in rescuing articles on women and/or artists (though I feel I know Cullen pretty well otherwise; hello, Cullen!), as Softlavender has repeatedly stated. It's not apparent on their userpages. (Adding PS: I guess it is sort of noticable on Cullen's page, If I had read more carefully.) But I really don't think you ought to ping anybody with the argument that they specialize in taking a particular stand on the kind of article that's in question. That's an argument for not pinging them. Obviously your intentions were of the best, since it looks like you pinged people you thought to be, if anything, unlikely to share your own opinion — but such an attempt to manage an AfD isn't appropriate either, and it remains an argument for not pinging them. I hope none of the three people pinged/otherwise alerted think I mean to criticise them with that opinion, not do I think their input at the AfD should be discounted — by no means. They are, after all, highly skilled, highly respected, and highly neutral administrators.
@Softlavender:, I'm quite underwhelmed by your debating style at that AfD. To repeat the same argument verbatim five times, with apparently rising indignation — look at what you're making me do, I'm repeating myself! "I'll state a fifth time"! — looks like bludgeoning in my eyes.
@BabbaQ:, nobody has asked me about this, but in my chatty way, I'll still register my bafflement at your own Keep !vote. How on earth does WP:NEXIST support the notability of the subject? If there are better sources out there, which is what NEXIST is about, why don't you go find them? Unless you support your opinion with references, I have to say I would discount it if I were the closing admin. (Which I'm obviously not going to be, after all this discussion my page.) Bishonen | talk18:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
My rationales for Keep was just included in another editords rationale for Keeping the article [7]. Other than that I guess the best thing is for this discussion to die down. I don't see this going any further. Thanks for your input. Hopefully we can move on now. Let's await more reactions.BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read WP:NEXIST, an article should not even be nominated for deletion, much less deleted, without its subject first having been checked for sources that may exist but have not yet been cited by Wikipedia. I think we are here to add relevant material, rather than delete it, whenever there is a reasonable choice. I also see nowhere that it would be the responsibility of one only certain user (I see that a lot) to find and provide better sourcing. Looks to me like the guideline pertains to us all. With a deletionist attitude seeming to have very highly prevalence at English Wikipedia nowadays, I can see how there could be differences of opinion about things like WP:NEXIST, especially since the last sentence there seems to negate the rest of the guideline, when positivism would be at its very most urgently needed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you misunderstand NEXIST, Serge. It says that an absence of good sources in the article doesn't necessarily mean the subject lacks notability. There may be sources out there, and it's the business of anybody who wants to opine about notability to look for these possible sources. "However, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive". You have to either find them, or put up a persuasive argument that they probably do exist. BabbaQ did neither. And you don't like the last sentence, Serge, because it says it's no good just pointing to the possibility of some sources somewhere. Well, IMO the last sentence is needed for completeness. Bishonen | talk00:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
So we disgree. I have not given you any subtle pointers about misunderstanding anything, and having read the guideline carefully and competently (with English as my first language), I stand by my opinon of those words as expressed above. I basically agree with BabbaQ's interpretation of the guideline as it reads right now. "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article", etc. You may want to change the wording more specifically to your liking so as to encourage more deletions with little or no regard to sources that might possibly exist. In the meantime, you and I can respectfully disagree, without pointers about misunderstanding. Shall we leave it at that? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could, but I can't let your rather rude implication that 'Shonen's grasp of English might be in some way less than yours go without commenting. English is my first language, and has almost certainly been so for longer than it has been yours (but this isn't a pissing contest), and I read NEXIST just as 'Shonen does. Notability, if challenged, requires actual proof. It is not a defence to deletion to assert that "sources might/must/ought to exist" without supplying them. In other words, NEXIST boils down to saying that existing sources that prove notability do not have to be in use in the article. Of course we expect anyone who asserts that sources don't exist to have looked for sources before making the assertion, but the onus will always remain on those claiming existence to demonstrate it; it would not be sensible to insist on proof of absence. --RexxS (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you chose to misinterpret my comment about language as a "rather rude implication that 'Shonen's grasp of English might be in some way less than yours". You couldn't be more wrong. I've taught English since 1964 (tho you'd never know with all my typos nowadays due to worse and worse eyesight and bit of brain damage) and that has no connection whatsoever with my opinion of this user's excellent command of English. When I read something in English and others who also know English people interpret it quite differently, I often explain that English is my first language, so they won't think I (I) am lacking in that aspect. No offense intended. You chose to try to pick a fight here. Other than defending my comment on language, I pass on that. I respect your opinion and this user's. You? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rude implication RexxS? Touchy much? SergeWoodzing is trying to have a good discussion concerning a guideline, try to do the same please. Sandbox, get out of it.BabbaQ (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pot meet kettle. Neither of you are trying to "have a good discussion"; you merely want to extol your faulty understanding of the guideline to score debating points. Take your playground behaviour somewhere else if you don't want to be criticised for it. --RexxS (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just my two cents, but I get pinged all the time to look at articles about women. Often I find enough sources to decide Keep or Weak Keep. The bias in my !voting record is that I rarely invest my time in articles that are obvious deletes. I personally didn't feel "canvassed" because this is rather normal for me (Clean up on aisle 3 for Megalibrarygirl!). Canvassing--and dealing with articles by paid writers is a touchy issue on Wikipedia and I hope this can be resolved amicably, but I think that Softlavender acted in good faith here. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the IP editor in that AfD. Seriously the two complaining editors (BabbaQ and Dennis Bratland) need to DROP THE STICK. There's zero positive outcome from their continued whining, and I say that not as something nasty but from the definition "To complain or protest in a childish fashion." Several very good editors of high repute in Wikiland have explained their position. Just take them at their word and move on. If you see it happening four or five times, you can make a case somewhere. But once-- what the heck is the issue? The way you put it, these editors may as well have been responsible for the Three Mile Island accident. Move along. Major waste of wiki time. If they cannot let this go, they should get sanctions, as it is really battleground behaviour.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also here are some example phrases for BabbaQ and Dennis Bratland to use, which would save us all a lot of time. 1. "Thank you for your explanation. I was concerned at the possibility of vote stacking but your explanation satisfies me." 2. "Thanks for explaining that. I am not completely OK with such invitations, but I will take you at your word." 3. "OK I will accept that. Thanks for explaining. I do not accept the way you went about it, but I'll assume good faith." 104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, young Luna. I was sort of alluding to Sitush's suggestion that the small crew of people who attempt to do something about disruption in the IPA area — to empty the ocean with a sieve — are all jaded.[8] He's right. Hmm. That piece of jade might perhaps be worked into a hand bailer. Good! Bishonen | talk15:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for this; I was heading to their talk page to do the same, but Zilla's legs be longer than mine, methinks. On a more serious note: I think we really, really need to authorize pre-emptive EC protection on pages affected by ARBIPA. I've discussed this before (see here, and also elsewhere with RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff) but haven't done much about it. Thoughts? (and apologies if I've asked you about this before...). Vanamonde (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bishzilla can jump like a kangaroo, Vanamonde! Yes, didn't we do that once? The way I remember it, it was so exhausting and complicated that we may have had no strength left to do anything much practical about it. (I seem to remember some contrarian spokes-in-wheels from users and maybe admins with no experience of the area, that made me very tired.) But we did drag it to AE and get some decisions, didn't we? Guys? @Sitush, RegentsPark, NeilN, SpacemanSpiff, and Utcursch:? Space is on a RL break right now, though. Bishonen | talk21:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I would strongly oppose any Wikipedia:ARBPIA3-style restrictions. Arbcom made a mistake there, throwing out WP:NO-PREEMPT and turning admins into little robots and we don't need to dramatically exacerbate the situation. Vanamonde93, discretionary sanctions already give you the authority to ECP ARBIPA articles. Protect liberally but not automatically. --NeilNtalk to me21:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: I don't necessarily think we need automatic protection, but we do need to be able to protect something in anticipation of trouble; we do need pre-emptive protection. I asked Callanecc about the DS, and he said that ECP is not, at present, something which can be applied as a discretionary sanction, only as a normal admin action; and EC protection as normal admin action has a lot of restrictions. I want to be able to slap indefinite ECP on any page with any significant history of socking: and not just in the article namespace. There's a good many AfDs which would benefit from ECP. Vanamonde (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: I have no idea why Callanecc would say that. Procedure states, "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." It does not limit what type of protection we can use, just that it be reasonable. --NeilNtalk to me12:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, young Callanecc, you cleaned up the wording after Vanamonde asked you about it in December. To be quite clear, then, the new wording presumably allows applying EC protection as a discretionary sanction. The previous version listed "semi-protection, full protection, move protection," per your diff, which might seem to exclude EC protection. Now it just says "protection", as Neil mentions, so does not exclude any particular kind of protection. Furthermore, the enumeration of types of page restrictions ends with "or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." I don't see how that could not mean that if the enforcing admin believes ECP, or incineration by Bishzilla, is necessary and proportionate for the page in question, then they can apply it. Including preemptively, though personally I think it would be rare that preemptively was necessary and proportionate. Yes? Bishonen | talk11:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The Society of Jesus' various suborganizations (for a lack of better word), are frequently difficult to assess in terms of where they would place on Wikipedia i.r.t. notability. This is because a lot of their work walks a fine line between religious work and being an educational institution (and they would likely argue that no distinction needs to be made). I'd place the above institution on that line: from what I can tell, it isn't particularly prominent, even within Catholic circles, but the faculty there likely view it as an academic endeavor. Even after the RfC last year, our standards for schools tend to be lower than elsewhere. I'm not sure how I would !vote on an AfD about this, to be honest. Anyway, sorry if my musing is unwelcome or unhelpful, Bish. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bish. I accidentally made edits logged out of my account and wanted to know if there is any way I can erase my IP from showing, even if it means deleting those edits. (N0n3up (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Oh, gosh... I seem to have banished that from memory, probably because it involved a good deal of heavy lifting and stress. Thank you for the alert, Calton, I will certainly take a look. Bishonen | talk20:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Sometimes the last RfPP request turns up on my watchlist, and then even I can be fast; something similar probably happened here. Anyway, gå och lägg dig, Tom! I'm certainly going to. [Bishonen faller av stolen.] Bishonen | talk23:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Memories of an old thread re: account creation/wiki outreach
I am sure there was a long-ish discussion in recent months concerning giving people account creator rights for outreach work. It involved a fair few long-term contributors but I am blowed if I can find it at ANI, AN or VPP. Do you or any of the watchers here recall it? - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, any rumours of me being nice have been greatly exaggerated. I would have removed those insistent IP edits myself, if the talkpage stalkers hadn't, but they were always too quick for me. Did you notice I thanked them, the tps, below? I really don't care for Easter greetings sent together with attacks on other editors. But I'll keep this one. Thank you. Bishonen | talk11:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you II
Thanks for the protection, NeilN, I was just considering doing it myself, to save the fingers of the watchers who have helped with reverting. And thank you too, kind watchers. Bishonen | talk15:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I truly don't think the warnings with PME and myself were needed, particularly when there was an existing discussion about including that information. BR had not participated in it, there was no consensus to include it, so I'm not seeing why BRD doesn't apply here to him as well as those who felt it should be removed. The tone of your warning has made BR think he can run around, acting self-righteous and issuing threats as if he is now above question. I just looked. I've only made 1 edit to that article in over 2 weeks. Even if I did remove it, that would be the second in 2 weeks, with zero discussion from BR in that time frame. Not exactly a flaming edit war. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the warnings were needed, however, because there are other forms of battleground mode than flaming edit wars. You may only have made one edit to the article, but you made a strikingly aggressive and up-in-arms note on the talkpage. In particular, what was this bit about? "BTW, you know what else the Arbcom would probably notice? You making a controversial edit, then posting the DS notice in a what appears to be an attempt to intimidate editors." What DS notice did BullRangifer post, and why would ArbCom care? (You're presumably not referring to the DS alert on PackMecEng's page, which I posted myself.) It's ArbCom's very own alert, part of the DS system, and they definitely don't mind it being posted. Furthermore, I see you've added more aggression on talk after my warning (which was actually only a warning that I would formally warn you if you attempted to remove the content without giving a good reason — a bit absurd, all those layers of warnings, but I don't mind giving people a laugh). You think it's collaborative to call people a giant wanker? More like that and I'll block you without benefit of discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk17:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
There was an existing discussion that he never took part in. He was reverted and suddenly, there are warnings going to everyone but him. Around the same time he made an edit that he knew would be controversial, he posted DS warnings at the article page. It was a clear attempt to try to keep his undiscussed edit from being reverted by using a veiled threat. I say veiled, but he did go fetch an admin and get warnings thrown out. Then, after the warnings, he starts his smug posts, acting like he's swinging some authority around. So yeah, I did suggest that some people may view him as a big wanker. I have edited that comment, striking out the misunderstood material and replacing it with something softer. I honestly feel like you're taking sides on this one. I may very well be wrong, but it truly does give me that feeling. I don't mean it as an attack, I'm simply expressing that it looks like that to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I'm sorry you see it that way. Thank you for striking out the abusive epithet. But don't give me "'misunderstood' material". I understood the material fine, see my discussion of paralipsis on your page. Bishonen | talk21:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Done. Looking at their talkpage, there seems to be a competence issue. Please let me know if you should see them perpetrating further copyvios, now that you've warned them. Bishonen | talk21:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
😀 Well put, Kautilya3! Unfortunately, 117.221.187.23 and the other ones, 117.207.237.2 and 117.248.12.126, together comprise a huge range. So I've merely blocked 117.221.187.23 for block evasion etc etc. It's dynamic. Please let me know if you see need for semi anywhere. We may well be stuck with this daemon. Bishonen | talk17:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I think we need to semi the article as well as the talk page for perhaps a week. I have asked for indefinite ECP for the article. If you feel it right, you might do that as well. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I see another IP sock has already popped up, after I blocked the first. Vsmith has already semi'd the article, but only for ten days. Yes, if the disruption/socking continues after that, I'll certainly consider longer protection, but I don't want to second-guess Vsmith to begin with. Let me take a look at the talkpage. Bishonen | talk18:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Russian interference article
Hi, Bish! I don’t like to make admin decisions at articles I am involved in. Could you take a look at this edit by VM? As you can see from the history, they are immediately re-adding something that had been “challenged by reversion”. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Melania (as I understand you wish to be addressed these days), I have a personal policy against having anything to do with DS page restrictions, so please ask someone else. I dislike the page restrictions and think they're bureaucratic, hard to understand, impossible for newbies, and often confusing even for experienced editors, especially me. Oh, and sometimes gamed. So I don't sanction nor warn where page restrictions are concerned, and don't involve myself in AE reports on them either. Just a personal choice, and note that I do do other kinds of discretionary sanctions (do them to excess, some might say!), so please don't hesitate to ask about those. Bishonen | talk20:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
OK, thanks. I hear you. I basically came to you because you were online and several other people I might have asked were not. As for "Melania", I enjoy the joke now and then, but see the disclaimer on my user page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, various Bishes and TPSes. Would anybody be willing to venture an opinion on this? I think the references are problematic (YouTube vid a probably copyright vio plus IMDb unreliable), but being a dangerously unstable troll, I'm never sure about these things. (Nice mountain, by the way, but I was hoping for something sentient—maybe even cuddly.) RivertorchFIREWATER17:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, talkpage stalkers, should big Bishzilla have a bigger sig?
Bishzilla has been trying to add a link to her pocket to her sig, for hospitality. It looks like this: bishzillaROARR!!pocket. Lovely, in my opinion, and hospitable. But she had trouble pasting it into the Preferences signature field — it was cut off. :-( I have posted a question at the Village Pump.[10] Little talkpage stalkers are cordially invited to respond there. <subliminally>Support Bishzilla or perish!</subliminally> Bishonen | talk17:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Unfortunately, my pet Dino can't tell the difference between 253 and 254, so I've had to finish the job for him. As it turns out his, code had 2 characters spare, so you can replace "red" with a colour that can be expressed in CSS shorthand, i.e. #A9E (that means #AA99EE), which I think is near enough to the #A7A0F2 that you wanted. At least I can't see any difference:
Possibly. [Disgruntled.] Some blowback about substitution and about <font> tags at [11]. But seems to have settled down. Make note of Dino's fine shorter version without the tags etc, [12] in case come with pitchforks later. [Bishzilla make little joke, trying not to laugh at thought of "coming with pitchforks". She likes to use pitchforks as dainty implements for fine dining, and as toothpicks. Feels gruntled again, starts energetically picking her gleaming teeth.] bishzillaROARR!!pocket12:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
As you suggested, I went to the talk page for Christian Science. There, I submitted a research-based request that 8 new words be added to an introductory sentence. However, I was given no opportunity to "develop consensus" as you said might be the case. Instead, my request was listed as answered, and denied under the basis that "we don't really have the space to unpack it." Adding eight words is a pretty simple. If an editor doesn't like my eight words, I would be happy to help her or him develop a different or shorter phrase. Or, editors could do some research on their own. Either way, the following is undeniable:
God is primary and central to Christian Science, based not on opinion, but pure research. To omit God from the introduction to Christian Science and to lead with a topic that is secondary is inaccurate.
Do you have any suggestions for how this inaccuracy can be resolved?
Hi, Sjostyn. Thank you for complying with Wikipedia's principles. I prefer not to discuss the wording you propose, though; I was talking to you purely as an administrator, to explain how things work here; I'm not well-informed or any too interested in the subject, I'm afraid. As for "develop consensus", there's nothing to prevent you from replying to SlimVirgin on talk, and we can also hope that other editors will weigh in. You realize everybody here is a volunteer, though; people edit and comment on things that interest them, and of course people who are Christian Science practitioners, like yourself, are going to be more interested than the run-of-the-mill editor. Now that you're here, incidentally, I'll just mention I'm kind of surprised to see you suggest yet again the phrase that I had queried particularly in my edit summary: "God, good, is" etc. It just doesn't sound like normal, or encyclopedic, English to me. Is "God, good", some kind of Christian Science term of art? P.S., with all possible respect, please don't bless me. It's against my religion. Bishonen | talk10:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks so much for your further direction. I am still learning the technicalities of conversing with people on Wikipedia.
Thank you also for your question regarding my use of "God, good..." That phraseology/style is actually used by Christian theologians. For example, St. Athanasius (one of the Church Fathers), in his treatise "On the incarnation of the Word of God", writes of mankind, "Three ways thus lay open to them, by which they might obtain the knowledge of God. They could look up into the immensity of heaven, and by pondering the harmony of creation come to know its Ruler, the Word of the Father, Whose all-ruling providence makes known the Father to all. Or, if this was beyond them, they could converse with holy men, and through them learn to know God, the Artificer of all things, the Father of Christ, and to recognise the worship of idols as the negation of the truth and full of all impiety." (p.52-53).
As you can see, it is pretty common practice to mention God or Christ, to add a descriptor afterward separated by commas, and to continue your sentence. In the quote I just gave you, Athanasius employs this practice three times in three sentences, thus identifying "the Ruler" as "the Word of the Father" and identifying God as "the Artificer of all things" and "the Father of Christ".
So, my phrase, "God, good, being infinite and ever-present..." employs this same format. If people don't like that phraseology, I will attempt to derive consensus on it in the Christian Science talk section. That being said, it is much better/more honest/accurate to mention God using an unfamiliar phraseology/style than to not to mention God at all if you are talking about Christian Science and the contents of Science and Health.
With great respect for your religious practices (I believe we are all brothers and sisters), Susie
I'm sorry, Sjostyn, but your quotations from St. Athanasius seem quite irrelevant to me. There's no reason why theological or for that matter secular writers shouldn't use descriptors after a noun phrase, separated off by commas, and then continue the sentence. That's standard English, not reserved for Christian theologians or for defining God or Christ, and the way St. Athanasius does it is perfectly cromulent. Your "God, good," is not. In my opinion. I'm surprised both at your opinion and your example, but I don't think we'll get any further with this, so I won't elaborate. It's hardly worth arguing about. All the best, Susie; I respect your religious practices too. Please take it back to the article talkpage. Bishonen | talk20:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, I dunno. This page is pretty catholic in its interests. However, I would have thought Athanasius wrote in Greek, so Susie's quote above is from nothing more than a rather old translation of his treatise on Logos (i.e. Christ as the Word of God incarnate), so not terribly useful as an exemplar of writing in English. As for the original question, I would hope that the OP has now figured out the difference between a noun phrase in apposition, which follows the noun in English, and an adjective, which certainly doesn't, other than as a poetic device. That is not the tone we use in writing an encyclopedia – apart from the User talk:Darwinbish page, of course. --RexxS (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know whether or not it‘s a named figure of speech, but I suppose it could be regarded as a form of ellipsis (omitting “who/which is“); it has a similar effect to that of an asyndeton. I agree such rhetorical devices are out of place in the encylopedic register.—Odysseus147902:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such wisdom on Wikipedia - I'm so thankful for everyone's insight - thank you! I'm not Catholic by denomination, but I am a fan of "catholicity" in its inclusive, universal sense. I am a Christian theologian who has taken classes at both conservative and liberal seminaries, which means that I've read works by people that I agree with as well as disagree with. If people don't prefer this example of Christian language, I could provide others, but that's not the point. I believe that Odysseus has accurately identified the figure of speech. If people don't prefer to use it on Wikipedia, I'm sure we can find a different, acceptable way of phrasing the idea in question. I look forward to any insights you all may suggest on the Christian Science talk page.
Hi Bish, I heard that you block users who no longer want to continue in Wikipedia and ask to voluntarily be infinitely blocked. If so, can the user return in the future or not, and in the same or new account? Just curious. (N0n3up (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, what Capitals00 said, see the page linked to. My conditions are set up to make it very difficult for the user to come back during the block, since presumably they asked for a block to help with the wiki-addiction, but maximum is indeed six months. And I usually try to talk people down to three months. Bishonen | talk09:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Otara Gunewardene, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Dan arndt (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I think that Greenangelstudios is most likely to be an employee of Otara Foundation/Embark rather than Gunewardene herself. And I don’t think they are necessarily a paid COI but someone who thinks they are doing the right thing by their boss. Anyway that’s my two cents worth. Dan arndt (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I may end up AfD'ing it, but of course I'll give you time to work on it first, Dan arndt. I hope you're able to find some references. You don't think somebody who's employed by Gunewardene's foundation is necessarily a paid COI? You mean they might just be doing their boss a favour, without being paid for it? That sounds dubious to me. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I didn't block Greenangelstudios per WP:PAID, but as a promotional account under a promotional username. And what alerted me to the connection between Gunewardene and Green Angel Studios was Gunewardene's e-mail otara@greenangelstudios.com given here. Bishonen | talk15:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Far enough, have to agree that based on the evidence there is some sort of connection. It would appear that Otara Foundation and Green Angel Studios are one in the same, that doesn’t however mean the user is Otara herself. Anyway, give me a day or so and I should be able to get the article into a sufficient state to satisfy the notability requirements. Dan arndt (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you being a little difficult now? I don't know who the person is, and if I did know, I wouldn't say anything about it on Wikipedia, so please don't imply I did. What I said was "I see on the web that you represent, or perhaps are, Gunewardene". Please stop alerting me for typo fixes and pointless additions. Thank you for the message about the deprodding, and good luck with your article improvement. Bishonen | talk15:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
User:ThePierrasse
No, not me.
If you are still suspicious, then please subject me to whatever SPI/checkuser type procedure you wish, it will confirm that I'm not ThePierrasse
thanks 124.106.139.19 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUsers will never link IPs and accounts, for privacy reasons, so it's not about what I wish. But a CheckUser, Bbb23, has posted in the ANI thread stating that you are unlikely to be the same, which I accept. So you're just an unhelpful wikilawyer, not a sockpuppet. Do you have an account? Bishonen | talk18:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Oh come on. "So you're just an unhelpful wikilawyer" isn't really called for. You have someone quoting policies that are not true and I called them out on it. I didn't defend ThePierrasse's edits. I asked an admin to clarify exactly what the rules were, while making it clear that I didn't think the right not to communicate applied in ThePierrasse's case. Not exactly wikilawyering. The only reason for it being considered wikilawyering, was because you thought I was ThePierrasse.
I could have been an ass about it and said that ANI isn't the place for sockpuppet accusations, but I saw it as an honest mistake and didn't see the need. And here we are, you've been told by a CheckUser that it's really unlikely that your accusations are true and still you have to make a snide comment? I didn't expect an apology, but neither did I expect something quite so negative.
Do I have an account? I had one, but I haven't used it in quite a few years. I'm not even sure if I still have the login details for it. Why do you ask? Just curious or some policy related issues? 124.106.139.19 (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I usually consider that question more of an opportunity to be transparent. A registered editor in a discussion is rather like a contestant on Mastermind: they are speaking from "within the light" as anyone can see all their contributions, and their reputation is clearly discernible; whereas an IP is more like Deep Throat: someone speaking "from the shadows" - visible in outline, but essentially unknown. You can make a dialogue with registered editors more comfortable for them by stepping out of the darkness, and filling in a little of your background. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting perspective. I think that also relies on the registered user giving some personal information in order to make themselves seem more like a person, rather than just a supplier of edits. It depends how you want to be seen, I personally don't really have a desire to judged on my online identity, I've tried it - I didn't like it. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a lot of time meeting Wikmedians in person, and I find it enlightening to encounter a real person, rather that a "supplier of edits" (nice aphorism, by the way). I have a userbox that sums up my view:
This user believes that meeting other editors in the flesh makes it far less likely that they will be treated like a pile of dogshit online.
For some reason I happened to be rereading something on my talk page, when I noticed something ... suspicious. You (or your Bishy companions) seem always around whenever I've had episodes of what I used to think were simply my semi-addled misadventures in misclickings. See: Reverting trolling, November 2014, and What? Fat finger?. So are you secretly in control of my fingers? Paul August☎10:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Bishonen, Twitter is considered a "social media platform": [13]. I know you lost some respect for me when, for no good reason, you came to the assumption that I'm a flaming Conservative White Supremacist a couple of months ago, but please leave the LOLs out of your edit summaries when deleting content I've added to articles about Conservative subjects, okay? That's just rude. And, to be honest, lowers my opinion of the kind of person I thought you were. -- ψλ ● ✉✓22:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you John; that was my thought. I know it's a social media platform. My LOL was for the fact that Twitter being a social media platform is so well-known it doesn't need saying. "The social media platform Twitter" sounds to me a bit like saying "the breakfast dish bacon and eggs" or "the snack a bag of crisps". You really shouldn't take my edit summary personally, or as something aimed at you, Winkelvi. (Insofar as I thought at all, without doing any research, I kind of assumed Mr X had added the phrasing.) And now you expect me to research the edit histories of conservative subjects to make sure who added something, in case it was you, before I formulate my edit summary? Do you think that's a reasonable request? Bishonen | talk23:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
If I misread it, I apologize. As far as this: "And now you expect me to research the edit histories of conservative subjects to make sure who added something, in case it was you, before I formulate my edit summary? Do you think that's a reasonable request?", I made no such request. -- ψλ ● ✉✓23:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) There's no "if" in an apology. That's just weaselling a non-apology to make you feel better. And don't you realise when you demand that 'Shonen "leave[s] the LOLs out of [her] edit summaries when deleting content [you]'ve added to articles about Conservative subjects" that she would have to check the edit histories of conservative subjects to see if you were the one who added the content she was addressing? Are you having problems with English or logic today? --RexxS (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With that insipid bad-faith answer to RexxS's explanation, you have completely outstayed your welcome here, Winkelvi. Please go away now. Concerning your "apology", you might be interested in reading WP:NOTSORRY. Or not, of course. Bishonen | talk15:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I'm afraid my civility on the issue has worn out, and in the interest in not getting myself blocked, I'm disengaging, but I strongly suggest some sort of action be taken here because this is not stopping. --Tarage (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tarage. This popped up on my watchlist. I remember Bish from waaaay back in the day - always an editor to admire so I don't blame you seeking support from this quarter. violet/riga[talk]23:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, both. Always nice to see you on my page, Violet! A blast from the past indeed. I have commented in the ANI thread — perhaps not a good idea, since it seemed to be about done, but since you have both come to my page, I thought I might as well. Anyway. I note that BMK isn't calling for any sanctions, so I'm glad you're disengaging as well, Tarage. Bishonen | talk07:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Very well, but I will not be drawn into any protracted back and forth on AE, after I've already written my own analysis quite fully and bored everybody sufficiently. I'll answer once. If you have any further complaints after that, you'll have to come back here. Bishonen | talk20:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not interested in a back and forth. I was just curious. FWIW, the Debkafile thing doesn't mention money at all. He was responding to the other editor saying that Gazans would be better off if Hamas spent less donated money on tunnels and more on civilian infrastructure by saying that Israel gets more money ("misappropriated US taxpayer funds" I think he called it?) in absolute terms and per capita, so Israelis who are beneficiaries of this money (obviously the other editor) should shut up about Hamas. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For ease of reference, this is the comment he was responding to. The Debka thing was about what Hamas is planning with the current protests, while he was responding to the prior sentence about the situation in Gaza in general and how Hamas uses the "billions from the world" it receives. I honestly don't understand how anyone can miss the personal attacks in the response here. Look at them together. It's not a subtle dog-whistle. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem: the diff shown has three words about another editor out of 118 that focus on asserted facts. The three words say that the other editor spouted nonsense by pasting information from an unreliable and biased source. That does not rise to a sanctionable level. Why not engage with the 115 words that assert facts? Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Israel's beneficiaries of this misappropriation of US taxpayer funds" is also about the other editor. And most of the rest of the words are a buildup to that. Nice to see you once again come to Nishidani's defense. You're a good friend. I recall this conversation we had on my talk page. Good times. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I resent being trolled with "You're a good friend" and the other off-topic commentary. At Wikipedia, it is best to focus on content and engage with the points raised, rather than treating the exercise as a debating game. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is complicated. But that is part of the problem. Why do we need all this complicated stuff in a page on Slavery in India? We all understand what slavery means. His whole thing is quite twisted, so twisted in fact that he can't even say in his own words what is going on.
But the reason I brought it to you is because he stared throwing tantrums essentially. Here are the diffs: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].
And, most of all why is he writing about me on his own talk page?
I might take it to WP:ANI eventually if he gets to that stage. But, for now, a gentle warning from you that he does indeed need to generate CONSENSUS in order to new content might help. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the writing to you on his own page is no big deal, it's a common newbie mistake. (I realise he's not that new.) But I've warned him about re-adding stuff without consensus, and about making nonsense arguments ("censorship"). Quite a sharp warning — sanctions will come next. Bishonen | talk10:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
On the other hand, I just realised the article has been protected for a week, so I'm not sure how useful my warning is. For the future, possibly. Bishonen | talk13:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, I saw them on your page. Hope you enjoy the sweets. I admit I eat a lot of sweets, but at least I'm somewhat willing to share! Bishonen | talk19:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
OMG, that's complicated, I'm reading the deletion review to try to understand how it went. The creator, Felsic2, hasn't edited for a year, right? Several socks of a blocked user have moved it to WP space, it was several times deleted/moved back, as can be seen here It seems clear on the linked page that NeilN's and Berean Hunter's deletions per G5, "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban: HughD" were incorrect: the socks just moved it, Felsic2 created it.
You then moved it to Wikipedia space with the argument "Move well-developed user essay to Wiki space". Chris Troutman moved it to your userspace.. but Berean Hunter moved it back to Felsic2's space.
And your question is, were you wrong to move it into WP space in the first place? I'm not sure. It's an unusual situation, because the creator is apparently gone from Wikipedia. My feeling, looking at the page, is that I'm far from sure it was intended by Felsic2 to become a Wikipedia essay; it looks more like notes for their own use, and perhaps to refer others too. I believe it should be left in their userspace. On the other hand, I'm less than impressed by Chris Troutman's arguments in the conversation you link to; it seems pretty transparent that he mainly doesn't want it in WP space because he's ideologically opposed to it ("this screed"). Consensus is certainly not required for an essay.
On the third hand, if you like, you could create your own essay based on it (and credit Felsic2 for stuff you borrowed from them). A word of warning, though: the content is certainly controversial, ideologically, and once an essay is in WP space, anybody can edit it to pretty much mean the opposite. I generally leave my own essays in my userspace now, after some experiences of that. Bishonen | talk22:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the input. I was a bit taken aback by Chris Troutman's insistence that I self-revert. This is a difficult area and it can be hard to separate sock-fighting from POV-pushing. To set the record straight, my understanding is that admins reverted the sock several times by moving the page back to userspace and deleting only the redirects. BereanHunter's was the only true deletion.
Felsic2 did actually proposed adding it to WP:Firearms at one point.
Regardless of who said and did what, I think your approach of leaving the essay alone and re-using some of the content is going to be the best solution. –dlthewave☎01:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, he did want it in WP space? That makes a difference, but since he's not here to defend it, it's still best left in his space. The discussion that you link to certainly shows the deep divisions in this area. It's a good thing there are discretionary sanctions (though as far as I can remember, I've never yet used them myself). Bishonen | talk09:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
LOL, how dare you question a simple factual statement? What do you think of changing the first sentence to "19th Kushok Bakula Rinpoche (19 May 1917 – 4 November 2003) was recognized by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama as a reincarnation of Bakula Arhat" (from further down)? Would that help? Bishonen | talk09:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
That is what I am thinking of doing but prior to my involvement (and contrary to the source) it said he was a reincarnation of Kushok Bakula Rinpoche. I find this type of article very difficult to deal with: on the one hand, these things attract religious adherents and on the other hand they tend to be so confusing that if you are not an adherent, they are well nigh impossible to fix. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)comment: I feel that with ... they tend to be so confusing that if you are not an adherent, they are well nigh impossible ... you have probably stated an important and quite general fact ... best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no; I do do self-requested blocks, but not longer than six months, which wouldn't be much use to you. If you want to stop yourself from editing, Writ Keeper's advice is good: set your password to something random (just hit some 15 keys or so) that you won't be able to remember and then log out. Good luck and thanks for the articles you have created. Bishonen | talk16:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I'm afraid I don't. If you feel strongly about actually being blocked, take a look at the Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested_blocks that Writ Keeper linked you to. You'll see that the links on the category page are mostly simply to userpages. A few are to a specific page about an admin's conditions for self-requested blocks, for instance my own User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks, and there are three more like that. Those four admins all say they're not willing to place indefinite blocks — I just checked them. So those are no use to you. What you can do is appeal to one of the others. I'd suggest trying User:HJ Mitchell or User:Swarm, just from my feeling that they are obliging guys. Bishonen | talk19:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
It's done. The last time I saw one of these requests ignored the editor had the bright idea of vandalizing admin noticeboards. Better a block be done with "no hard feelings". --NeilNtalk to me20:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An editor pinged you from ANI. They want an admin to look at the thread. I made the suggestion they ping an administrator mentioned three to pick from. [21]. If this was improper please no not sanction the editor for my error. Jbh Talk20:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just didn't want to see someone get dinged if I screwed up. I definitely understand not wanting to dip a toe in there. I thought it was just a regular ANI mess when I stepped into it. Little did I know it would morph into such a rollicking shit show… Anyway, it looks like Bbb23 has an eye on it [22] if it does not burn itself out. Enjoy the weekend! Jbh Talk20:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sir i beg you To Post Khaga History Article If you have any doubt i will give you screen shot pic proof or gazeteer proof
What? You're not communicating. Feel free to try again. For your header: I don't know know what your native language is. My point was that it doesn't seem to be English. You have said yourself that you don't speak very much English and can't understand warnings.[24] By the way, I'm sure the text you keep trying to add to articles is copied from somewhere else, since it's in much better English than the comments you write in your own words. Violating somebody else's copyright isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk16:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
(talk page stalker) The problem with using terms such as "native language", "mother tongue" and similar in a discussion with someone from India (and a number of other countries, for that matter) is that it's a Western concept that isn't commonly understood by people elsewhere (see First language#Mother tongue). - Tom | Thomas.W talk16:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, BullRangifer, I can't make head or tail of that mobile diff, I'm too old school. On my screen it doesn't even say who made the edit or what the article is. Talkpage stalkers to the rescue, please? Bishonen | talk19:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, sure, BullRangifer. You said "edit warring" — nice economic way of implying an IP too, when you have the misfortune to be typing on a phone — so I looked. If you care about the silly username, even though it hardly reflects on you, I can revdel it from the article history. Bishonen | talk08:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Well, it's a collection of the user's contributions to discussions on various talkpages. It's kind of annoying that there are no indications of where the discussions are copied from. For instance, I tried to find this one and succeeded by checking Martinevans123's contributions, since the timestamp was preserved on Per's page, but it was rather a laborious method. But apart from that, I don't see the harm. What we don't want on userpages is material unrelated to Wikipedia, but these copypasted bits are undeniably related. (Even though less so towards the bottom of the page.) I wouldn't bother the user. On a good day, I might advise him to complete his records with links to the original locations, or indeed to replace the copypastes with such links, which is a more convenient and econonomical system. (I don't know if you would like to do that?) This for the sake of his own convenience as well as other people's. I'll just ping him, so he can see this discussion, and comment if he wishes: @Per in Sweden:. But you may feel I haven't fully addressed your concerns, @Tarage: in that case you may want to take it to ANI for more eyes. Bishonen | talk22:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
My concern was more using his page as a soapbox for his ideas, using comments that might have been deleted for soapbox reasons on talk pages and 'rescued' onto his own. But if you think it's fine I won't take it further. I was merely wondering if I was mistaken or not. --Tarage (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Philippine date-and-year-vandal still active
Seeing that JamesBWatson is currently "Away for a while", I dump this on you, since I have seen you tpstalking his tp. Referring to this conversation, I can inform you that the Philippine IP is continuing their irritating subtle disruption from addresses close to, but outside the currently blocked ranges. Some of the last IPs used are 49.145.167.176 and 49.145.165.41, possibly also 49.150.36.65, but that one has only one edit that is difficult to crosscheck. I do not have time to go through all their edits now or look for other IP addresses, but will try to find time soon to revert their disruptions. It is a boring pain-in-the-ass job... Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't include 49.150.36.65 unless I block a whole /13 range — not gonna happen, and it doesn't look certain that they're part of the malice anyway. I'll just do what James did and block 49.145.160.0/20 for two weeks. A /20 range is quite worrying enough for me! Thanks for your vigilance, T*U. Bishonen | talk10:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Done, 48 hours. @HickoryOughtShirt?4:I blinked when I saw you on my page just as my finger was poised to publish a post on yours, to thank you for your fast work at WP:UAA. You reported this one in the same minute it was created, and I caught your UAA post directly from the top of my watchlist, so I had some hopes for the holy grail, i. e. a block logged in the same minute the account was created. But it was not to be; I was one minute late. The seconds were probably already running out. But some day we may pull it off! Bishonen | talk09:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
.jpg)
Administrator changes
None
Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Thank you Home Lander (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
Hello, and thanks for writing this word on ANI without providing a proper source. It made my day, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Bishonen: I noticed you have closed a conversation today, I almost figured by his messages that he would be gone until Sunday, then I'd get a response. But that's not my main point. Considering you said that "FWIW it doesn't sound to me like there's anything you need to do.", that means I'm done with this whole thing. Now do you think I approached it correctly?
Thanks Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 15:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Done, 48 hours. @HickoryOughtShirt?4:I blinked when I saw you on my page just as my finger was poised to publish a post on yours, to thank you for your fast work at WP:UAA. You reported this one in the same minute it was created, and I caught your UAA post directly from the top of my watchlist, so I had some hopes for the holy grail, i. e. a block logged in the same minute the account was created. But it was not to be; I was one minute late. The seconds were probably already running out. But some day we may pull it off! Bishonen | talk 09:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC).
