This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bishonen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
[Bishonen, who is a diabetic, embiggens the panettone image and stares at it entranced. It's one of the most delicious-looking things she has ever seen.] A bit of? Can't I have the whole thing please, little Tenor? Bishonen | talk20:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC).
And I want it embiggened right here. Mmmmmmmmmmmm. All the little talkpage stalkers can have a thin slice, in the spirit of Christmas. Bishonen | talk21:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen. I just wanted to take the time to say thanks for being a good and honest to me in my beginning steps in Wikipedia, always doing the right thing. And for being an honest Admin, being the only admin I know who shows their block log and activity for transparency. And wanted to wish you Happy holidays :) (N0n3up (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC))
I saw your note, Bishonen. Thing is, Rick Allan Ross has been attempting to whitewash his article for a very long time, and I'm not the only one that saw this either. He's posted on numerous forums to get others to help him, this is , more or less, disruptive behavior. Now, I'm not going to say he's violating some policy , however, what I will say, is, the disruption needs to stop, if he needs to be T-Banned, then he needs to be T-Banned, although I would hate to see that happen, if it needs to happen, then so be it. Just check his contributions and you'll see that he's constantly attempting to whitewash his article. By the way, you said that I said to ignore him, I actually never said that, so I'm not sure where that came from. Also, my edit summary is stating a fact, nothing more, further, I'm curious about the discretionary sanction notice you placed on his page, my actions are not disruptive, I've edited Rick Allan Ross's article a grand total of 1 time and have spoken about him on the BLP 1 time and have posted on Winkelvi's page 2 or 3 times, none of that should have merited that banner, so what's up with that ? KoshVorlon12:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Your edit summary that I linked to was nasty, and violated WP:NPA: you've been here a long time, you probably know the NPA policy says prominently "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Original bolding. You did the opposite when you reverted Rick Alan Ross. Even so, the discretionary sanctions alert I placed states explicitly that "it does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date."
As for ignoring Rick Alan Ross, that was Winkelvi talking about that on your page ("I still believe it is best to ignore him"). I was replying to Winkelvi, under whose post I posted, and whose name I said, to ping him. Then I started to speak to you, and said your name. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Bishonen | talk12:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC).
Try this again
Bishonen,
My firewall (at work) is blocking me from replying, so I start a new section (sorry about that, the firewall's out of my hands ). Actually, I didn't think my comment violated NPA as I was stating a true statement, and not actually directed to anyone. As a matter of fact, it's absolutely true that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to simply change the article because Rick Allan Ross says we have to, that being said, when I looked back at my edit summary, I can see where you might have gotten the idea that it violated NPA, because it could look like I was responding to the last editor's changes, that would be NPA. Thing is , I wasn't, all in all, it's just a misunderstanding, very much like when you placed the Discretionary Sanction banner on my page. I took it to be a response to my editing, but as you state, it wasn't, it was a caution message. So , at the end of the day, it was a missunderstanding between us. KoshVorlon14:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
"Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)
Master have "fail" at wishing holiday greetings. Me take control of his 'puter. Little monster want to make good wishes to Bishonen and most beautiful creature. Also wish best to little ankle biter and entire family. ChedZILLA
Thank you very much, SarahSV! The lutfisk with mustard I had for Christmas may not be "the best" for you 'murricans, but I quite like it! People can probably get used to eating absolutely anything, if it's introduced early in life. Bishonen | talk17:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC).
Re: Your unilateral decision to topic ban me
First of all, you are incorrect that RAR has never edited the article. He has edited in the past with different accounts. I ask that you perform due diligence and look into the editing history of the article going back to when it was created. He has edited with both a named account as and IPs. This has been established in previous discussions at the article talk page.
Secondly, the only so-called "attacks" were made prior to your warning to me at my talk page. My follow-up comments on other talk pages and BLPN as well as my own talk page since your warning were clear to state that I was trying to apply AGF with him. The comments I made to him and about him as an editor after your warning were observations and never ever designed or intended to be attacks. I'm sorry you were so offended by my comments to him about "my bio", but I honestly don't see how those particular comments - when read totally in context and with objective eyes - can be seen as an attack when they were offered as AGF advice.
Lastly, discretionary sanctions of any kind are always a black mark on an editor going forth. I request that you allow me the opportunity to self-monitor rather than having such sanctions imposed. Further, how I have edited the article has never been an issue other than the slight back and forth between me and two other editors a couple of days ago. If you take notice, I have not engaged in anything that could be considered disruptive at the article since your warning at my talk page. I continue to have no intention of editing there in a manner that could be considered disruptive and will keep that resolve from here on out.
One more lastly: Please note and realize that my comments to the article subject were not in regard to the article subject but in regard to what I (and several others) have seen as disruptive behavior by the article subject as a registered editor. He continues to be a single purpose account with no indication that he ever intends to be an actual editor contributing to Wikipedia beyond his continual requests and demands for changes at the article about him. It would seem to me, that because my comments have been to and about Rick Alan Ross the editor, these sanctions are not in line with policy. I have not, and never will, disparage RAR the article subject. That in mind, don't editors have a right as well as a responsibility to bring up issues with an editor who is and always has been a SPA trying to keep the article on them as complimentary as possible? Indeed, there are discussions at the article talk page now (and have been continually in the past) about RAR's repeated and continual requests for this and that to be taken out of the article. One look at the article talk page in its current state as well as its history and it's easy to see that several editors have felt exactly as I do. My concerns are not just well-founded, they are and have been shared by other editors.
Adding to my concerns over your unilateral topic ban decision is this statement from you: "I have exemplified in several warnings how you have made up "policy" out of whole cloth and bashed Rick Alan Ross over the head with it. This has gone far enough."I have NEVER made up policy. I may have misunderstood policy and/or misstated policy according to my understanding of it, but making it up? No way. I would never do such a thing. You really need to think about walking this back as it is a very serious charge in my eyes. Being called an intentional liar is something I don't appreciate. I challenge you to find one instance in the 3+ years I've been here where deception has ever been something lodged against me, proven, and made to stick. I, madam, am simply not one who deals in dishonesty.
Another concern is this: "I believe you when you say your intentions are good and you have nothing against Ross; but it really doesn't make any difference at this stage". And why doesn't it matter? You are telling me I must exercise good faith toward Ross at any cost, regardless of any evidence indicating good faith may not be appropriate. But even when you admit I have good intentions, in the next breath you then say my good intentions don't matter and I am still to be disbelieved and distrusted as well as sanctioned. The discrepancy and lack of logic in this reasoning is not only blinding, it's tells me you have made this a personal thing based on emotions you have against me because of my vocal objections to Ross' behavior as an editor and the single purpose of his account here.
"This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator" Because of what seems to be your emotional and personal response and subsequent topic ban based on same, I don't see how you qualify as an uninvolved administrator. From WP:INVOLVED, I quote: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." While you have stayed away from the RAR article and editor talk pages, your strong feelings as expressed in the sanction notification you left on my talk page shows you have VERY strong feelings about me and my comments regarding RAR the editor. Indeed, comments from you such as " the last straw for me", "I will not put up with..." prove this is personal for you. That personalizing is not only inappropriate language for a sanction, it's inappropriate for an administrator making any kind of long-standing/indefinite block or banning decision.
Regardless, I want you to know that I acknowledge and will take to heart your concerns about my comments regarding RAR the editor. As stated above, however, I don't believe you are looking at things objectively and probably need to extend some AGF my direction. Not once have you asked me where I'm coming from, you've only read what I wrote, made accusations, and then this sanction was handed down in a very personal manner.
At any rate, thanks for considering my appeal here - it is offered with the utmost sincerity and honesty. I have no hard feelings toward you because of it, but I am confused and concerned at how it all went down. If I don't hear from you on this in a day or so, I will take this elsewhere. Not because I want to make waves or do any damage to your reputation as an admin, but because I think this needs more eyes and opinions. -- WV ● ✉✓18:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Denisarona (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Happy New Year!
Are you proposing to undo Winkelvi's ban completely? Removing it from the log would do that. Do you then consider it a voluntary restriction? Can you clarify at AE? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I guess our messages crossed, Ed, sorry. OK, I've removed it from the log and made yet another note at WP:AE. It's quite clear now, I hope. Bishonen | talk20:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
Do I need to do anything at the appeal (like state I'm rescinding the appeal as a response to the sanction being rescinded)? -- WV ● ✉✓20:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it would make sense if you put something like "I'm withdrawing this request since the ban has now been withdrawn" right at the top of your statement. Make it visible, for instance use italics, and sign it. Bishonen | talk20:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
While you rejected my informal appeal, you came up with a good solution and compromise a bit later. This barnstar doesn't speak specifically to how the whole thing resolved, but I think it gets the point across. I know I'm not the easiest person to work with in this environment, so I sincerely thank you for your spirit of resolution and willingness to trust my word. I won't forget it. -- WV ● ✉✓20:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikimedia
Hi Bish. I downloaded an image (actually a GIF to be exact) from Wikimedia for brief use in a class presentation. And was wondering if there is a risk of virus or any personal info being stolen or shown. Or if there is any risk by downloading anything from Wikimedia. Just wondering. (N0n3up (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC))
There are no certainties when it comes to security problems, but it is very unlikely that a computer with updated software would have a problem with a .gif image. Anyone can upload files to Wikipedia or to WP:Wikimedia Commons and such files could contain any junk. However, it is a fairly safe bet that once a month or so has passed, any problems would have been noticed. WP:Reference desk/Computing is a good place for general computing questions. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I do apologise for vandalising your userpage. I did that in order to draw your attention because I would be interested into knowing why you didn't report me for my alleged sockpuppetery? Tony Abigail (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I have sent the person off indefinitely. Would be marginally useful to know if he's a sock or not, but it won't really change anything. Favonian (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Favonian. What an unusual way to "draw my attention", Tony Abigail. BTW, "insist", as in "she insisted that she would assume I am a sockpuppet", usually means somebody has said something several times. I hadn't. I had shared my thought process with you, once. I didn't do anything about it, such as block or report you. I agree with Floquenbeam. Goodbye. Bishonen | talk21:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC).
(talk page stalker)...calling someone a Jew hater as a way of grabbing their attention is sick and slanderous. It's unbecoming for anyone to say such a thing, let alone someone who professes to be a police officer. CassiantoTalk21:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind handing out some form of warning at user talk:166.48.75.250? The same IP has added opinionated rants in article space at gimbap and bulgogi despite being informed about guidelines and policies.
Love the snowman, btw. Gud jol in efterskott and grått nytt hår.
Does it make any difference from what decision a DS authorization stems from when it comes to what may be addressed at enforcement? Maybe some drama could have been saved if I asked that question earlier on... Also, I never did get an answer to my actual question about whether anyone can place a DS template on an article subject to DS but not so tagged. Can anyone do it or must an admin? Thanks and have a wonderful New Year! JbhTalk03:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it makes a difference, Jbh. Any disruption of a BLP, no matter from what direction, is sanctionable per the BLP discretionary sanctions. For instance, if a scientologist should come to Rick Alan Ross or its talkpage, and persistently edit in a way to try to skew the scientology-related material, they could be topic banned from it on the discretion of a single admin, simply because it's a BLP. Is that the kind of scenario you had in mind when you asked at WT:RFAR? As for adding a DS template… hmmm… not sure I understand you. How would the putative person be sure the article was subject to DS? I don't think a single individual could do that. (It doesn't make any difference if they're an admin, either.) There's often argument about whether DS are applicable to a particular article. Not for BLPs, of course, but pseudoscience is a classic example. I'm not sure how it's decided. Perhaps a good oldfashioned edit war could settle it… (Sorry, who said that? Get out of my head, User:Darwinbish!) The safest thing might be to ask at WP:ARCA. But, as I said, since all BLP's are under discretionary sanctions anyway, it doesn't matter in this case.
About why your question above looked weird once you saved it — yeah, it's all the templates with good wishes of the season, they tend to bleed over into other posts. See me ask for help on User talk:RexxS, where similar things had happened. User:Pigsonthewing has fixed it — thank you, Andy. Bishonen | talk23:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC).
Talking about fixing things, sorry, but this edit will not ping. The rules are beyond human comprehension, but editing a comment (even with a new signature) does not trigger a notification. That's pretty reasonable because someone might have pinged hald a dozen people, then correct some typos, and the system should not resend all the pings. If it were smarter, it would know whether it had sent a ping, but it has no knowledge of that. In short, to fix a ping you need to add a new comment underneath. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks... Yeah I was hoping that having a Scientology notice would help put editors and admins on notice that more subtle shenagans then you might typically see at a BLP might be going on (in the future). For instance; There are some, rather nasty, RS that may be sponsored by Scientology or other cults and there are others that may be simply negative but not hit pieces; there also have apairently been dirty tricks like impersonation of the subject. I made the silly assumption that a BLP where the article had been a subject in the Scientology case and the editor who is the article's subject had a finding and remedy naming him (because of the impersonation question) would uncontrovercialy fall under the DS of that case. Silly me... it seems that in fact what I was doing was implementing a nefarious plot! </sarcasm>.
I will look at the page history to see what the templateproblem was - I have seen unclosed templates eating new posts but that was new to me. Maybe I will learn something since anything I learn about html at all is new to me :) JbhTalk12:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Right. I tried to fix it myself by adding a </div> and a {{-}} to the last template above you — right at the outer edge of my html competence, that — but I never dreamed there might be more </div>'s needed higher up. Just look at all the little edits Pigsonthewing made! Bishonen | talk12:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC).
Wow! I would say that makes me a feel little less dumb but I can not even guess why all of those errors would be silent until finally getting to my post. I guess I angered the html gods - at least angering great powers makes more sense to me than div, class and span; or maybe it was not the gods but the Platonic Ideals DIV, CLASS and SPAN whose imperfect reflection failed when projected into this imperfect software we call wiki; or maybe I just do not know crap about html; or - yeah that's it... magic! :) JbhTalk13:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks like they were all silent until there was a regular post such as yours — as long as the next post also had div in it, no harm was done. Mind you, that's not an explanation, I don't profess to understand it. On another note, I understand you guys think the Jason Scott case is important and needs to be in the lead, but isn't the paragraph about it rather long? Relatively speaking. Counting words, it's more than half the lead. (81 words out of 154.) Is it more than half of the man's notability? Bishonen | talk16:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC).
The Scott case is what first built his name followed by Waco. Most of the other mentions of him in the press are 'talking head' type reports - and there are a lot of those. If we mention there was a judgement against him he wants the final settlement in the lead and that takes a lot of text to avoid the impression the original judgement was excessive when what happened is Jason Scott went from being represented by a Scientology lawyer to being represented by a lawyer who had worked with one of the co-defendants, CAN, in the past. (The judge had this to say ""The court notes each of the defendants seeming incapability of appreciating the maliciousness of their conduct towards Mr Scott... Thus the large amount....". and "...intentionally or recklessly acted in a way so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." That is informing my editorial judgement in this article.) I would say there have been 3 or 4 threads in the last six months about how much to include. Late last month the lead was [3] and it had been stable for a while but it did not mention the criminal case. I think the most recent expansion was as part of bringing the Scott section in line with the Jason Scott case article.
Much of the tension seems to be between Scott/Waco being his primary notability and his recently (re)launched cult database site being his primary notability and a bit around any author who is critical being a cult apologist or single biased person vs being a large segment of the commentators and the author of the Federal investigative report. The problem with drawing the line with those is some are/could be hit pieces or they could just be people who really disagree. It is great to have Ross' insight into when we need to pay special attention to sources so in that his participation is particularly valuable.
It would be a thorny article even without the subject of the article being massively involved and I (with three other editors in the last week) have clearly stated to Ross that he should step back because the talk page is well in its way to becoming toxic simply from the shear volume of his posts. I have hopes things will settle out and the WP:CRUSHing will end once he understands that SELFPOV is not NPOV and no one at the talk page is out to smear him. On the other hand I also have a fear that the WP:CRUSH tactics could be a conscious reputation management strategy that no confidence building will temper, even in an environment of entirely calm waters. JbhTalk18:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jbh: Regarding who can place DS banners on articles: this is unclear. Why not propose such a banner at WP:AE, and AE would figure it out. In practice, my guess is that most banners are placed by admins. In the case of the RAR article, there was no burning need to add a notice of the Scientology DS. If I saw an article being newly-targeted by obvious single-purpose accounts with a certain POV I might scurry to add a DS banner, assuming there were relevant sanctions. Warning people who haven't arrived yet seems a bit hasty, when you don't yet have an example of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Thank you, that is good to know. I really thought it was a no brainer and a simple technical question of who can place the notices since he and his BLP were subjects of that case - foolish, foolish me. Anyway it is not really a big issue now, there is a notice linked to NEWBLPBAN and that should help address the concerns about people (ie cults) targeting his BLP. Personally I think noting Scientology would have been useful (or New Religious Movements - even better - if that combining motion proposed a few months ago had passed) to let people know it is at risk of more concerted and subtle manipulation because it may be targeted by cults as opposed to individuals. Not enough for AE on this one though, much drama for no real benefit to the article. I will keep AE in mind if such an issue comes up again. Happy new year! JbhTalk19:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for blocking User:46.233.116.166. I was going through recent changes and noticed this guy did a lot of vandalization of people's talk pages. I tried to replace them with proper welcome pages, but having to go through all of pages and change every single one was a pain. Hopefully he wont be back for a while.
Have a cookie for your good work
Asm20 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
And unbeknownst to me when sending my first comment you about this, another editor has also raised his opposition towards this very uncalled for and baiting comment here. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Lol, thank you, SnoCoReporter, very cute. Linking all those newspaper names may be overdoing it. The principle is that redlinks (showing that an article doesn't exist) are fine, but only for items that may reasonably get their own article at some later stage, i. e. if they're notable. If they're mostly web newspapers, Wikipedia:Notability (web) might be the page to look at to decide about notability. (But nobody expects you to do all that research — do it if you're interested.) If you conclude some of them are notable, perhaps you might even like to create the relevant article/s? Bishonen | talk14:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC).
IP block
Hi. Could this IP please be blocked. They have been warned twice including a final warning and they have continued to be disruptive and vandalise. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bish, Can you please block me until Friday at 12:30pm UK time? I would've done the WikiBreak enforcer, however i don't want to be locked out of my account forever if i get it wrong. I've read your policy on your self requested blocks, and I'm happy to be Hard-Blocked. I just need to focus on my exams and get the grades i want until Friday, and try not to edit, so thats why I'm asking Class455fan1(talk)21:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Right. I usually like to wait 24 hours after a request before I block, to give upset people a chance to change their mind, but this is a different kind of situation. You have been blocked. (Actually for 60 hours from now, the closest I could conveniently get.) Good luck with the exams. Bishonen | talk22:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC).
Masochist. I noticed that person because the other person, WillShowU, complained that we only went after him. So help me, I'll block Chanakya Knights if he keeps editing without edsums. I wonder if that's ever been done? Bishonen | talk20:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC).
Hi B, predictably, WillShowU hasn't bothered to reply to any of my last three comments on his talk page. I'm not so much requesting any action yet, only keeping you apprised.
The Indian film article world is so bizarre. You get so many editors who seem obsessed about finding the next highest, or newest guess. They're all guesses! "Box Office India's guess is better than Bollywood Hungama's guess!" Mind-boggling... Although in some cases, I know that they're getting paid to do that. Thanks, and I hope your weekend is setting up to be nice. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I should mention, WikiBriefed is off his block. He's doing more rambling than WillShowU was doing. Might be different people, although I still think there's a very strong behaviorial similarity. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I see WikiBriefed editing an archive, I'll drop him a line. What I don't quite understand is why he was gone for so long. He was only blocked for 48 hours in November. Bishonen | talk20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC).
I had problems with Chanakya at the beginning but they seemed to stablilize. Not sure what his deal is. Obviously he's silent. Tended to focus on constant box office gross updating. WikiBriefed is erroneously accusing me of having a bias against Shah Rukh Khan, one of the biggest male actors in Indian cinema. People call him SRK for short. FYI, I'm not Indian and I don't watch Indian films. I've seen a few in the span of my life, but it's not something I'm going out of my way to do. They're far too long and many are shameless ripoffs of popular US films. While it might sound silly for people to fight over actors, Wiki-senetor was one such editor who went through ridiculous sockpuppet efforts to put the name of his favorite actor, Monhanlal, before the name of another popular actor, Mammootty, in articles, lists and even in this category. Sigh... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
History merging
Are you comfortable doing history merging of articles?
I am going through old lingering drafts, finding a few candidates for this, either because the author cut-and-pasted a draft into main space after it had been modified by others or because the draft is superior to an article on the same subject in main space.
I think history merging is my one fancy trick. :-) It's been a while, but as long as it's just a regular straight up-and-down history merge, I can surely do it. Famous last words, possibly... but tell me what you've got and I'll have a go. Bishonen | talk15:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC).
Do you mean the texts are identical, Hegvald? Or, if not, is it the text at the draft that should end up as the article, with the history fully crediting all contributors to both versions? I can do that. Bishonen | talk15:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC).
In this case, it is the same, or very nearly the same, text in the final version of the draft as in the first version of the main space article, but this was a result of Ninafundisha's pre-move editing which now isn't given credit because of the cut-and-paste method of the move. So it is only a matter of joining the history to the article where it belongs. Not to revert the text to the draft version. Not sure if I made myself any clearer now... --Hegvald (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine. Look at the article history now. :-) I'll just take a look at what should best be done with the talkpages... I think I'll just merge them by hand (there's different text on them), then delete the draft version. Bishonen | talk16:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC).
Sure, welcome back any time, Hegvald. There's so much stuff I don't know how to do around here that performing the old history merge always sets me up. (As long as it's nice and simple like yours. Getting entangled in a complicated one and needing to be rescued doesn't do a thing for me.) Bishonen | talk20:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC).
Another one: Draft:Jack R. Norton appears to contain the early history of Jack R. Norton. The first edit of Jack R. Norton appears largely to be identical in wording to the declined version of the draft from 11 days earlier (see also the edit summary at creation of the latter).
Is it possible to only merge the first two or three edits of the draft? The rest are of no use from an attribution point of view and will just mess up the history of the article. --Hegvald (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, no — I don't know how to do that. Also, I don't agree it would do any harm to simply merge the whole histories. You mean it would be messy to see "submission declined" and "speedy postponed" in the history? It does no harm IMO, and could turn out to be of interest, e. g. if the article should be AfD'd in the future. I'm against removing information. Of course I agree it's the early history that matters — the fact that Krenny4 created it. BTW I see Smokefoot is an active editor — maybe you want to ask him nicely to move, not paste, drafts by others to article space? And please let me know if you'd like me to do a simple history merge. Bishonen | talk10:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC).
I have no problem with including the decline, which has some value for the article history. I was actually thinking about my recent tiny edit to the draft, which will look like a very strange revert. But is probably a non-problem and can be explained with a null edit with an edit comment once the merger has taken place. --Hegvald (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Joshua! I really don't moult a feather just because some fleeting anon tries to mess with me. Bad and upsetting things can happen on Wikipedia, but that's not one of them: "Oh dear, I wonder if I might have blocked that character's obscene username straight from the user creation log? I must have done something right, anyway. Good." I hope you feel the same, because those sorts of attacks are really compliments. Bishonen | talk20:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC).
Help with a newbie, please
I am having some difficulties trying to help an inexperienced contributor who has taken offence at me massively pruning an article. I've userfied the old version, offered to advise etc but they're pretty upset and I wonder if you might be able to smooth things over. No worries if you're budy/not interested etc but the relevant discussion is at User_talk:Sunamikapreeti#Daya_Singh_Bedi. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Trouble in Bangladesh articles
Dear Bishonen, there is trouble brewing in some of the Bangladesh articles between two editors User:Akbar the Great and User:SheriffIsInTown and my efforts to calm the situation have borne no fruit. It probably started with Akbar's edits to Bangladesh and later Mukti Bahini, some of which Sheriff objected to. Then Akbar posted this note on the WikiProject Bangladesh talk page, which I thought was bit much. I reverted it, but it got reinstated. A discussion ensued at User_talk:SheriffIsInTown#Restoration_of_personal_attack, but it has done nothing but to inflame the situation further. I think an admin needs to take look, but most of the IPA-related admins are still away. Can you help? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
My concerns are with regard to the removal of content placed by me in the Bangladesh page's History section, which Sheriff continues to deduct on false grounds. The dispute covers many sentences on the status of the Pakistani union and issues of the 1971 genocide. Sheriff would remove any mention of economic neglect suffered by East Pakistan and 1971 atrocities.
My content has been supported by credible sources. Yet Sheriff contradicts sources, accuses me of misinterpretations, being "anti-Pakistan" and "against the Pakistani leadership" etc. I have endured such behaviour from him for three weeks. I attempted to discuss with him on the Bangladesh talk page. When I presented my arguments, he dismissed them as a different interpretation. Historical accuracy cannot have different interpretations! He simply dismisses their relevance on personal grounds, in contradiction of sources. The persistent stubborn position taken by Sheriff convinced me that he is either strongly politically or ideologically motivated.
I want peace in these articles. I have had enough. Although Sheriff and I have kept a distance from each other in the past few days, Vinegarymass911 and Kautilya began personal commentary on my the noticeboard posts in Sheriff's talk page, which indeed were unfortunate.--Akbar the Great (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen,
Thank you for giving me an actual explanation as to what I did wrong. That is what I wanted. Now I am sorry, and I will refrain from doing it again. Memesarecool (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know just what is going on here, but I am going to be adding more templates, tags to pages and editing some more outside "India" so that I don't keep bumping into your pal Sitush and just aim at being a good editor generally. Sigmabaroda (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
It appears I've become so used to placing block notices using Twinkle that I forgot the arb enforcement template doesn't actually place the block. Fixed — you have been blocked. Sorry for the confusion. Bishonen | talk10:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC).
Please clarify. Is it correct that you intended to block User:Sigmabaroda, and, for technical reasons, your block template didn't initially block the user, so that they continued editing after they should have been blocked, and that the user is now blocked? In that case, the Third Opinion request really can be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it can. I intended to block the user but initially failed, not really for technical reasons but more because I'm scatterbrained. Compare my response to SB just above, and a rather more detailed response on their page. Bishonen | talk15:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC).
As I thought. In that case, no need to offer Third Opinion. Third Opinion is only applicable when there are two good-standing editors, not three or four or one. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
email
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.
Wikibriefed started editing again, Cyphoidbomb, after, presumably, a pause for thought, and with civil edit summaries. This seems a little odd, though. I don't think Shah Rukh Khan himself can be called a cruel and clever bootlegger… and yet, the "character name" Abdul Latif that he removed is as such wrong — that's the real criminal the film is "loosely based on". The correct character name (it's supposed to be eponymous for Pete's sake) is presumably Raees Alam, as mentioned in the cast list… but Wikibriefed removed that as well... I thought maybe I'd correct a little — it's stupid to simply remove Abdul Latif, how can it be "not confirmed"? — and also remove the odd sentence "The film criticizes the prohibition of alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs in Gujarat" — does it really? the prohibition of illegal drugs? — which is unsourced, with a quite irrelevant source offered. But obviously I don't want to become, you know, involved, so I won't touch it. I'd better not look at any more sentences, I find it quite frustrating. We probably can't blame Wikibriefed for editing incompetently, it seems to be par for these articles. Bishonen | talk10:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC).
Taharrush gamea
Think you could take an administrative peek at taharrush gamea? There are IP-users adding all sorts of nonsense.
I don't think there's much I can do as long as it's on AfD. But I notice the original stub was much better written. There is some very wonky English being added, apart from anything else. ("Sexual assault in company"? Are you kidding me?) I actually think the stub was a pretty reasonable article, but it's clearly a powerful magnet for… well, nonsense, and may be more trouble than it's worth. There's a complaint about the transciption on the AfD, but apart from that (which I can't judge), it seems a good candidate for redirecting to something or other. E.M.Gregory's suggestion strikes me favorably. Bishonen | talk13:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC).
One of my friends is missing!
Where has that nice little puppy lady gone? I know she pops in here from time to time, for a glass of wine and rubber of bridge, but she seems to have gone missing. I don't like missing people - it takes me back to when one of our housemaids went missing in the shooting lodge, and we didn't find her until the grouse shooting started the next year - it was all very inconvenient. I don't normally care for Chihuahuas (nasty yappy little things), but I quite like her - so where is she? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Please inform the The Lady Catherine de Burgh that Eddie's in the space time continuum, and I went to visit him for a brief spell. I shall attempt to be more available in the future. It touches my heart more than I can say that someone not only noticed, but has missed me. :-) KillerChihuahua17:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Puppy! You know something else sad... I don't have CNN any more. I guess I won't be watching the upcoming Grand Debate live. :-( I do have access to the Daily Show, though (with some delay); they'll probably air the best bits. (Yes, yes, I know there's an internet out there. But I prefer TV.) Bishonen | talk19:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC).
You can't find a streaming source online? Hrm... Wait a day or two and see if it's on YouTube en toto, perhaps? Make sure you have plenty of popcorn. KillerChihuahua21:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The worst article on a Swedish topic?
Peter Estenberg. Is this the worst article here on a Swedish topic? Judging from edit comments in the history, it has been plagiarized from some amateur genealogy website. It uses extreme hyperbole and an "Infobox royalty" to describe what was in fact a circle of recently ennobled upstart families. It claims that Estenberg was ambassador to Poland and advisor to Poland's King Stanislaw, but the citation turns out to not even mention Estenberg. In fact, not one of the citations appears to be to a valid source supporting what is cited. It refers to the "University of Carolinska" and the "Swedish botanist, Linnea". There is not a single salvageable sentence in this rubbish heap of words. --Hegvald (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Incredible sources. The Peasoup PDF, published by the Vasa Order of America, may be my favorite, just ahead of "Google Translate". It's the source for the speculation that the Westerskold crest has disappeared from the Riddarhuset possibly because of the Westerskold connection to Jöran Persson. I'm sorry, I mean Joran Person, but, yes, good theory! Good for AfD, I think. Unless you want to go straight to PROD? There's really nothing redeeming. Bishonen | talk22:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC).
Can't be prodded as it has already been. Could be AFD'd but I suspect it would be kept as rewriteable. Estenberg is notable enough, barely. At some point I guess I will try to just stub it by writing a very short article from reliable sources. (There is stuff written about him, or at least about him as a part of his family. His great-grandson became a character in a Lagerlöf novel.)
In a way, it may be worth keeping it (at least in the history of a new stub) as an entertaining example of just how awful articles can get. A kind of chamber of horrors exhibit. The originator of this article has some other dubious contributions, much of it seemingly an attempt to glorify his family, or at least make it look interesting. An interesting edit is the one where he adds to the Eric XIV article that it is "commonly thought" that he was poisoned (through the means of the notorious soup) by Jöran Persson, dead for nearly a decade at that point. I am trying to figure out how that would have happened. --Hegvald (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Profile101
Hi Bish, Hope you are having a nice day.
I have a concern with this user. He appears to be WP:NOTHERE. He was being disruptive before with his IP address (which he has also revealed) and it appears that he still is being disruptive because he was warned. He also thinks he can block other editors from editing, despite me telling him he needs to be an admin. I was thinking of taking him to ANI, but i don't want stress from there so i came to you instead. Can you please take a look at this user (and IP address) and take action if necessary. ThanksClass455fan1(talk)11:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Right. Obviously both 119.74.47.12 and 219.75.38.135 are theirs. Sigh. But where do you see NOTHERE? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place (they're incredibly busy, in very confusing ways), but it looks more like competence/newbie issues and poor English to me. I've urged them to always log in. Bishonen | talk12:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
Hi Bish, I can see NOTHERE, because when this user had used an IP to edit,there was a continued pattern of disruptive editing. And i do think he is still doing this. I left an editing while logged out warning on one of his IP's. Class455fan1(talk)12:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, if it was me (which I expect it soon will be!), I wouldn't worry about being mentioned on their userpage, since it's not in a bad way. Please stop edit warring with them about it. You're probably formally entitled to remove your name, but why upset them about a thing like that? Bishonen | talk12:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
Ok. However, he still thinks he can protect pages and block others from editing, as you can see in the profile table the user has made. Just thought i'd make you aware. Thanks Class455fan1(talk)12:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I see it. It doesn't really matter. You have informed him, and if he tries to protect a page, he'll find out... I suppose I should watch him and his train of IPs to make sure they don't threaten another newbie with blocking, sigh, but they're so busy and messy that it's quite hard. Please alert me if you should catch sight of anything like that. Bishonen | talk13:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
It looks quite professional, so one hesitates. But they offer no sources beyond their own website, and Google doesn't find anything else, either, so yes, I agree it's a speedy. It's quite new, but with the source situation the way it is, I don't see much point in giving them more time to work on it; it's about basic notability, not about a problem with the way it's written. Done. Bishonen | talk13:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
Thanks. I was looking over the recent changes pages, and have tagged another for speedy. If i do anything wrong, or stupid, just let me know! Thanks for your help. Class455fan1(talk)13:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen, it looks like he is up to no good. He is now claiming that he is part of Charlesdrakew when he clearly isn't. He also said that if someone makes a subsection on his talk page (which you did when you warned him), he will block them from editing, but he has since removed that, so that makes me think even more he is WP:NOTHERE. Class455fan1(talk)16:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I "normalized" his talkpage — took a flamethrower to the headers — and warned him about adding more nonsense. Another user has removed the silliest bits of the table on his userpage (thank you, Thomas). I kind of hope I won't have to block him, though. Never any fun to block a user with so many IPs, if you know what I mean. If you'd like me to look at your second speedy nom, you'd better give me a link to the article. Bishonen | talk17:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
Yeah. I've answered you at the SPI. SPI can be useful in more mysterious cases, but listing all Misogyrn's socks is really just encouragement for him, and a waste of good users' time. Block, revert, ignore, is the best way. It's surely not as if what they say could upset anybody — is it? Bishonen | talk17:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
I notice that the user has re-added those dates that you removed on his talk page, and has still not replied to you. Apparently he gets irritated by making sub-sections? I'm sorry but i just had to laugh when he said "Anyone who makes sub-sections on my talk page will be blocked from editing (even though he can't)" when i saw that he reinstated this on his talk page. Class455fan1(talk)20:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Seems as if there is some block evasion going on. An IP edited this users talk page, and I geolocated them and the IP was based
Thanks. I wouldn't say it's strictly block evasion, since it edited Profile's page, which he can do even when he's blocked. You could see it more as forgetting to log in, which is certainly something I expect of this confused user[s]. But I'll note the IP along with the other three which are obviously his. Bishonen | talk15:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC).
No. Looks like an accident to me; it happens a lot, especially with less experienced users. Whether or not it was deliberate, you'll get further if you simply restore your text and say you "assume it was an accident". Don't start off talking about "vandalism". Bishonen | talk16:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
You mean you're used to reviewing discussions on other sites, EnigmaMcmxc? It's not normal at all here, in fact it's a no-no. I hope that clears everything up. Bishonen | talk16:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
Oh, come on, User:EnigmaMcmxc. We were talking about removing other users' posts above, nothing else, and you joined the discussion to say "this" is somewhat normal in review discussions. It is not. The fragmenting thing wasn't mentioned. (Rex mentioned it later, below.) I started by assuming good faith; please don't make me stop. Bishonen | talk19:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
The above started with the key term "modify", these accusations of deletion came afterwards. When, where, and what did I remove for which I keep getting accused of?
I admit fragmenting a post, per the reason above and a lack of familiarity with the policy pointed out afterwards, but I did not delete a single character from his argument! I note the lack of outrage for my entire post being unconditionally deleted, even if it was for a small timeframe.EnigmaMcmxc (talk)
It seems you didn't see where RexxS told you on your page that you had removed a chunk of text? I quote him: "In this edit you removed a block of text added by another editor." Click on the "this edit" link, it takes you to when, where, and what. RexxS and I both assumed it was an accident, but your answers are so unexpected that I'm becoming less sure. "Erm" to you too. Bishonen | talk20:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
Okay, so I am being accused of deleting that block of text, the block of text I did not delete. The block of text, which I have not denied, I broke up to provide a point by point reply. Something I have seen done on other pages without causing such a fuss, and as noted several times now practically common practice on review pages albeit the various discussion points on those pages are already bulletined to do so.
The simple reason why we don't break up other editors' talk posts is that it obscures who made the post which is being broken - i.e. the signature becomes disassociated from what the person wrote - and that holds true across all talk pages on Wikipedia. Both you and the editor whose contribution you are editing may know who posted it, but most other observers will find it difficult, and they are the people whom you inconvenience. In the exceptional case of reviews, each commenting editor posts in a section that is headed by their name which makes clear to whom the unsigned pieces of text belong if they become fragmented. Without such a named header a talk page would soon become unintelligible if each editor felt free to break apart comments from others. It's not a difficult concept: just don't do it. You've been around long enough to understand our convention - Help:Using talk pages #Sections is quite clear: "To respond to a discussion already in progress, click the "edit" link at the section heading and add your comment below the last entry in the discussion. If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it." I'd strongly recommend you adhere to that before somebody takes you to task for disruptive editing. --RexxS (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
As noted, I accept that I did not adhere to the policy and that this was a faux pas on my part. As you note, I have been round long enough, which is my I am finding the attention gleaned from this instance to be a little over the top coupled with what appears to be a series of one sided warnings and to much focused attention on two edits rather than some even handness at another individual who breached the same guideline and has ticked off about as many of the little 'you shouldn't do that' boxes as I have in the last 2 days.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@N0n3up:. Please disengage now. It is rarely helpful to warn editors with whom you are in disagreement. I've pointed out to EnigmaMcmxc where he removed your text, but assuming good faith would lead me to believe that it was an accident and he probably had not realised it until he reviewed the diff I provided. He also now knows that we don't fragment other peoples' talk page posts on Wikipedia. If he insists on making personal attacks on article talk pages, then my advice is simply ignore it and concentrate on the issues. It merely shows the weakness of an argument if it has to rely on ad hominem attacks on opponents. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Edit conflicts
... can either be described as "shit happens" or "great minds think/do alike", take your pick. It's too cold to go outside today, and I'm too lazy to do the things I really should be doing, so I just sit in my favourite easychair and browse through my watchlist (You have 11,444 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)). Which is how I noticed Profile101, who probably isn't from Singapore at all, but from Taiwan, considering both the username (inspired by Taipei 101) and the fact that they tried to create an article about a subway/metro train in Taipei, by adding a bunch of machine-translated gibberish ("translated" from Chinese, judging by the stray Chinese characters that are still in the text). Thomas.W talk17:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Such sudden frantic busyness, so many IP's, which sometimes even warn each other... I'm starting to wonder if it's a role account for a whole bunch of kids. Actually, I like the snow and the cold, though I'm a little afraid of breaking a leg. But it's pretty, it's nostalgic, and it smells really special. Bishonen | talk17:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
I think it's a group of kids working together, all of them with just a rudimentary knowledge of English. Just check this obviously machine-translated, and totally unsourced, "article": Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Crystal Movers C810. It's so bad it's easier to just blow it up and start from scratch than correcting everything that is wrong with it ("It is the future and the second type of rolling stock to be brought by Sengkang LRT Line and Punggol LRT Line which will be coupled with the modified C810 to form as two carriage and may can be coupled with the Gangway Connection. The trains will enter from 2016 onwards and the train design will be the same or maybe different."). Thomas.W talk17:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
I think you've put up with enough of my crap today! I think you deserve this for helping me and giving advice. If you see me doing anything wrong or stupid, you know where to find me. Thanks for everything you've done today. You've earned this! Class455fan1(talk)17:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I left a note on Rick Alan Ross's talk page about how he can use WP:AE and WP:AC/DS if he has problems on his BLP [7]. Would you please look it over to make sure I have not misrepresented anything and maybe give him some advice from someone who is much more familiar with the process than I am? Thank you! JbhTalk12:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I have responded. Based upon what I have seen regarding enforcement of rules and guidelines at Wikipedia I have largely lost confidence in Wikipedia based upon its behavior. Certain editors like Cwobeel and others know how to game the system and pretty much do whatever they want. Wikipedia has a history of this from Scientology editors to Jossi Fresco. That's what happens to a website that allows anyone to post anonymously. I will continue to post at the talk page per the guidelines. But frankly given the determination of POV editors to control my bio there seems to be little hope it will ever be NPOV or reflect historical reality. This is why Wikipedia is discounted as a reliable source.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello again Bish. Earlier today, i came across the above article when i was patrolling the recent changes area to try and find vandalism to revert. What grabbed my attention was that the article had been tagged for a speedy because it fails GNG, and all i can find on the internet for this guy is Huffington Post articles written by him, and an IP had removed a CSD tag from the article, and i restored it, but I've had two talk page messages from two different IP's telling me to remove the CSD template, which i didnt. I then geolocated these IP's and they are both from the same place (Kashmir, in India), so there might be some possible meat puppetry going on here. One of the IP's added the Huffington Post sources, but i said on the talk page that these could be just self-published. I don't intend to be canvassing here, but firstly, what is your opinion on this, and secondly, shall i make an AfD discussion for this page? I decided to ask you because i am quite fed up of getting messages from these IP's telling me to withdraw the CSD tag. Thanks! Class455fan1(talk)22:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Have you considered creating an account? But if not, just let me know if you need to write something on your page and I'll unprotect briefly. Bishonen | talk13:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC).
I don't see any foul language by that user in the history, so not sure what you're talking about. WikiBriefed, it's less helpful to link to a whole history. If you want to complain about an edit, you can link to that particular edit; such a link is called a diff. See the Simplest diff guide for how to create a diff. Bishonen | talk20:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC).
user cyphoidbomb
he is continuously following my edits throughout community. i know i m new. but this is really mean how he is harassing me wherever i edit. WikiBriefed (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb is an experienced editor and also an administrator, which shows the community has had enough confidence in him to give him the responsibility of administrator tools. He has been trying for a long time to explain the problems with your edits and your sourcing. You don't seem to be taking his explanations on board very well, and if he follows you, I suppose that's why. Following a problematic editor and checking that their edits are all right (and reverting them if they're not) is a service to Wikipedia. It's actually also a service to the editor being followed, as they can learn from it. If they wish to learn. While you're here, who is it you're calling a "Salman fanbot" on your page? Whoever it is, it's extremely rude, and comes after my warning to you about such things. And this edit summary is rude and hostile too. Stop attacking people and assuming bad faith or you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC).
I go where the problems are, and Indian film articles are ravaged by problematic editors. On top of that, WikiBriefed has drawn a lot of attention to himself through his combative editing style, his unilateral proclamations about which sources to use (I had to drag him to ANI because he insisted across multiple articles that BoxOfficeIndia.com was, from now on, the only legitimate source for Indian box office values), his pissy edit summaries, and his baseless name calling. As I've explained to him before, any editor worth their salt would scrutinize any person doing this. WikiBriefed, if you don't like the attention, elevate your behavior, but you will still find me all over Indian film articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Debriefing
Hi B. I think WikiBriefed should take a break. Continuation of personal attacks on me at his talk page, namely the "Salman fanbot" nonsense, which is clearly in reference to how he perceives me (as a Salman Khan fan). I also now believe that WikiBriefed is a sock of AniceMathew, who was (according to the SPI) known for "egoistic" behavior, combative and snippy edit summaries, selective use of sources, and a focus on Shah Rukh Khan. Take a look at some of the edit summaries in the sock contribution histories:
[10] <-- Includes dislike of Bollywood Hungama as a reference. We'd recently clashed of my use of BollywoodHungama at Raees (film). I allude to that clash on his talk page here
[11] <-- This includes "fanatic" accusation in an edit summary.
I'm not pitching that you indef as a sock, because I haven't done a really in-depth investigation. But this seems like a strong candidate, and we should keep our eyes open. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Right. Your eyes are likely to see more than mine in that respect, since the subject is a jungle to me. But peering into it and using a flashlight, I can actually see that WikiBriefed doesn't seem to understand the social norms here, no matter how many times he's told about them. There was a previous block for personal attacks, so I've made it 72 hours. Bishonen | talk21:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC).
Oh, sorry. I saw it, read the history with interest, and... then I guess I busied myself with blocking her etc. It's approaching bedtime here, I may be a little more woozy than usual. Done now. Thanks for reporting, and for reminding! Bishonen | talk23:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC).
Not a rush, but in a spate of vandalism/block evasion, a series of edit summaries was revdel'd a while back. One of the evading IP's contributions was missed. Could you take a quick look at this[12] and maybe erase them, if you feel it is warranted? Thanks! Scr★pIronIV13:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - that was a fun couple of hours! One day, someone will create a Rollback option for Admins to help with revdel - you are not the first Admin I have heard complain about the difficulty of revdel'ing multiple edits. Scr★pIronIV13:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
deleting my page was uncool, and VANDALISM
I read the page and what it says is that Deletion nominations are editing, but it doesn't talk about direct deletion. Why are you defending a person who, instead of making useful constructive comments, just deleted a page?
Make my page reappear and make constructive comments, isn't that what good editors are supposed to do? Instead you choose to add salt? I can see why people don't bother trying to contribute to this unwieldy project. --Potguru (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Viriditas is not an admin, so he can't delete your page. What he did, as he said several times (in the comments that you removed, and also on your own page[13]), was that he moved the article back to draft space because it wasn't ready for article space. Here is your article: Draft:Cannabis dispensary. Not deleted. Bishonen | talk23:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC).
I understand that Wikipedia's systems and different "spaces" are baffling to a new user. But please don't be so suspicious of experienced users when they try to explain how things work here. And stop with the "vandal" and "vandalism" right now. Being new actually isn't an excuse for insulting people. Certainly not after you have been told about it once. One of our basic principles is that you must assume other people are trying to help Wikipedia too. Read about it here. If you don't understand what they're doing, don't assume it's something bad. Bishonen | talk23:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC).
I noticed that you recently added some protection to Kandi Barbour because of vandalism.
The question I have is: Who do you consider the vandal? Me, who is trying to put out the correct information and has repeatedly answered the requests of Big Wullobitz for more sources each time I posted. Or him for not only reverting my edits, insulting me, but also for making his own edits which took out half of the page?
Because, quite frankly, if the sources weren't good enough, doesn't it make sense to add more? Isn't that how people (like me) learn how to do things 'the right way'. He was certainly no help, other than demanding more and more. I have learned nothing and am doomed to repeat whatever error it was that I made in the first place.
And, just to let you know, if you had read the talks as well, I am done trying to please him - which is why I reverted it back to the old page last night. Your protection request isn't going to change the situation because I was already finished trying to get the proper information out there. It's just not worth the hassle trying to deal with the troll.
2601:983:8001:3540:D97F:4F1:877E:BB38 (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)friend of Kandi
Sock/meat on caste articles (no surprise there)
Hi Bish, we seem to have a sock or meat situation going on at three caste articles, being Balija, Telaga and Kapu (caste). There is some protection in force at some of those but the overhead on the talk pages is becoming silly. I know that we really would rather not protect talk pages but there has to be some sort of limit to how much disruption we allow. I suppose one solution would be for the likes of myself, Kautilya3 and Allthefoxes just to ignore the various comments but I'm not sure that will work because unactioned edit requests to semi-protected articles will most likely just draw in yet more experienced people who end up responding to the requests in the same manner as has already happened. More bloat, more time wasted, no change in outcome.
You have more experience of dealing with this sort of situation than me. Do you have any suggestions regarding what could be done to curtail what is becoming something of a timesink? - Sitush (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I spent as much time as I could working with the user but they don't seem to understand. It is starting to be a huge time-suck --allthefoxes(Talk)01:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Right, I'll take a look this afternoon and maybe ask a CU. Just as a tourniquet, I've blocked the range 2602:306:8bc0:4660::/64 for disruption and legal threats. Bishonen | talk08:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC).
And also 166.170.56.0/22 for disruption and socking. That range may be too small, let me know if there's more from related IPs. Bishonen | talk09:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC).
OK, I've written to a checkuser, who is probably asleep right now — watch this space. Note, it would be easier for admins to act decisively if problematic new users on these pages were alerted as soon as possible to the arbcom discretionary sanctions in force. (I've done it now for these accounts — no point with the IPs, nobody's gonna "topic ban" or indeff a dynamic IP.) All you need to do is place {{subst:alert|ipa}} on their talkpage and sign. You may want to keep that in mind if new socks turn up. Looking at the output of the user/s, I realise they may well not understand the template either, but it's still an important formality. (Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy ha ha.) There are also special community discretionary sanctions for caste pages, with the template {{subst:Uw-castewarning}}. I'm not sure why, as the arbcom sanctions surely cover caste as well, and personally I find them easier to administer. What do you think, User:Sitush, is it better in some way to warn specifically about caste editing? (Of course they can get both templates, no problem, but I didn't like to overwhelm them with more formalities than necessary.) Bishonen | talk12:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC).
The caste sanctions came in first but, yes, they're probably redundant now. As for notification, I've never seen the point of doing it for anons because we're so limited in the actions we can take. I realise that you've rangeblocked here but my experience is that usually we can't even do that. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Quite, alerting IPs is pointless. But alerting accounts can be useful. (On the other hand, it looks a bit like the person behind the accounts is now using IPs instead, doesn't it?) Admins can only discretionary-sanction users (such as topic banning, which is not otherwise in admin discretion) for disruption they've perpetrated after they were alerted. It's a little paradoxical, because I can block indefinitely any time I feel like it. Zap! Zap! Bishonen | talk13:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC).
Heh. I think we may have a sock at Nikam now. One thing is for sure: editors to caste articles who have "history" in their username are never inclined to follow our policies. I'll template them both, even though I'll probably be accused of biting. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
If you are, just point out frostily that it says "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date". It's a very sweet template. (If you use the arbcom template. The caste template is sharper, and does imply misconduct, at least last time I looked.) Bishonen | talk16:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC).
I am at 3RR but Cluebot also reverted. I haven't claimed it is vandalism, nor used rollback, but I did tell them that Raj sources are unacceptable - and still they continued to reinstate. This has been going on for days with anons. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I know. If it's a genuinely new user, they may not have found their talkpage, nor the History tab, and are just wondering why their edits don't seem to "take" — so they repeat them. It's possible. I keep reminding myself how confusing this place is. Bishonen | talk16:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC).
Also, perhaps somebody would like to clean up the relevant article talkpages by "archiving to history" (blanking) all the disruptive edit request creep and similar? I started to, but lost momentum when I realized how few of the posts were signed, making them cumbersome to distinguish. Is there somebody less lazy out there? Bishonen | talk17:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC).
Balija, Telaga, and Kapu (caste). Thank you, Ed. Posts from the IPs listed at the SPI can be cleaned up, too, although the CheckUser (my little Ponyo) speaks discreetly about them, as they always do. Archive the whole sections "properly", if you like. Bishonen | talk18:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC).
[/me pats the good Little Pony]. Thanks, Ed. I see you spared the comments from the IPv6's, 2602:306:8bc0:4660:99fd:1a10:2866:d22f and 2602:306:8bc0:4660:4439:553a:9995:903a; they're blocked too, by me, for disruption and legal threats. I blocked their range, 2602:306:8BC0:4660:0:0:0:0/64.[14] (I don't pretend to understand IPv6, but my son tells me an entire /64 range is normally a single user, so it won't affect anyone else.) Bishonen | talk19:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC).
Thanks. Especially for listing all the Spanish-language accounts. I saw them, and went to block 'em all as username vios yesterday, but SQL was faster on all but one. Nice research! Bishonen | talk12:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC).
Reply from Sfarney
A conviction of conspiracy to defraud 40 years ago ...
Please create a new header for your posts. (I have added one. Feel free to change it.) The focus of the "material" was my warning to you that you may be topic banned from the article if you edit it with a hostile agenda. That kind of thing is for user talk, to make sure you see it. Bishonen | talk18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC).
The Little Prince
Hello ! I don't really understand why you're letting someone write false information on this film Wiki page. He's saying the film is also Canadian, but all the sources he's indicating say it is a French film. Yes, it is ! He pretends producer Aton Soumache said it but the article is restricted content so it cannot be verified. Whereas on an interview by BFMTV, his colleague producer himslef says exactly : "it is a 100% French film".
Just after the word "Canada", there is this ref http://frenchflicks.com/read/items/the-little-prince-a-franco-american-animated-feature.html, which demonstrates there is an American director, that the animation was done in Canada, and that the PRODUCERS are French.
On wikipedia, we always indicate the country of production, that is to say the country the production companies come from = where the moneys come from. We can't just rely on a few sources of English or American press articles that may contain mistakes. IMDB is not a reliable source as anyone can edit it. As you can seen, I have indicated different sources proving this film is 100% French-produced. That is perfectly indisputable. Production is different from animation, shooting, storyboarding, etc. Otherwise we should write that Despicable Me 1 and 2, for example, are also French, because they were entirely made in Paris. But the money comes from American production companies, so they are 100 % American films.
I think you're just wrong about who's writing nonsense on this page after you've read him writing "Can a mod stop this dude obsessed to prove that..."
Please have a closer look to this issue and help me write correct informations of this wiki page ;) Have a good day !
Herve.toullec (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Herve.toullec. I protected the page for four days in order to make the disputing parties sort out their differences on the talkpage instead of edit warring on the article. I haven't taken sides as to "who's writing nonsense" (actually it looks to me like both parties make a reasonable case in their edit summaries, so nobody is writing nonsense). That's not the way protection works: an administrator is supposed to just protect, at the moment when they see a page needs protection; not to take sides by protecting on a particular version. (Compare Wikipedia:The wrong version.) I hope you will make your case on talk and try to convince your opponents so that you can arrive at consensus (click on that link). If you can't, please get back to me and I'll suggest other steps you can take. Bishonen | talk11:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC).
Hi. All right, thank you. Writing that this film is a Canadian production is completely false, it is only French. English is a foreign language for me, so it doesn't make it easier. I've been putting several refs proving my "opponent" is wrong. But even facing these proofs and quotations, he keeps putting "Canada" in the article. I will try but I don't know what else I can do. Herve.toullec (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi B, it might be overkill, but I opened another ANI case on WikiBriefed for all the past issues, plus his recent decision to copy/paste a promotional plot summary as if it were totally cool to do so. SMH... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I started to type something, to propose that we might wait till he edits again after your warning and mine on his page yesterday — I mean, I believe he needs indeffing, really, but he hasn't edited since those warnings, so it would make sense to first see if he takes them to heart. (Admittedly unlikely by previous experience.) However, not unreasonably, Boing! has already indeffed him for copyvios. Bishonen | talk17:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC).
... would you mind taking a look at this User talk:DanJazzy#January 2016? I caught an editor trying to sneak POV changes into African Americans, and then edit-warring to keep it there. The edit added a gallery where there should be none, but that's just a minor problem, the big problem is POV removal of sourced content, removing material and the sources for it and replacing it with unsourced claims etc. And then when confronted by me on their talk page trying to change the subject all the time, denying having done anything but adding a gallery (even though I posted diffs...), accusing my of lying etc. I'm fed up with them right now, and also have a couple of other things I absolutely must do this evening, so "pretty please"? Tom Thomas.W talk20:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I think I've solved the problem, look at this diff, showing changes between September of last year and their first edit today, and note that there are no changes whatsoever below the image gallery. They've picked an about four months old version of the article, rearranged/replaced the images and then clicked save, in spite of there being a large warning banner saying that they're editing an old version of the article. Thereby wiping out the more than 200 edits that have been made to the article since September (tala om tummen mitt i handen...). But, technically speaking at least, everyone is responsible for everything they do here. Thomas.W talk23:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Aha! I just worked out for myself that they must have saved an old version — see my new comment on their page — you actually found the old version. You might go back and tell them, I suppose. But I wouldn't blame if you don't want any more of their refusal to listen. I don't much blame them for making the original mistake... but for the way they dug down, I do. Bishonen | talk23:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC).
Anni Dewani article...again
Hi Bishonen, I am not sure how but Lane99/AHindocha has managed to circumvent whatever block you enacted and is again posting rubbish on the Dewani article talk page, as well as sprouting the usual stuff on the Ahindocha talk page requesting to be unblocked. There can be zero doubt that it is one and the same person. Lane99=noanon=Forbeshighland=AHindocha. Same obsession with the same handful of murder trials, same combative tone. Perhaps best to bring some other admins in so as not to become too personally involved yourself. Can I leave it in your hands? Clearly it needs some attention. And for the record (in case you have any doubt), any allegation that I am a PR representative is both absurd and baseless. Best Dewanifacts (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
If it's any help, per Checkuser evidence AHindocha and blocked sock ForbesHighland are editing from within mere kilometers or each other. Given the extreme advocacy, strong behavioural connection and technical overlap the account should likely be blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots20:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Dewanifacts, I'm afraid it was only too easy to circumvent... I forgot to actually log the block! :-( Done now. Thank you my little Ponyo. Ahindocha has requested unblock (even though they weren't blocked, but now they are..), which hasn't yet been attended to; I don't know if you might like to leave a note for the reviewing admin? Bishonen | talk21:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC).
Thanks, Robert. Now I feel a little embarrassed that I didn't even manage to log the last sockblock in a timely fashion...! Bishonen | talk09:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC).
Mabelina
Good morning, I see you blocked User:Mabelina earlier. I can understand why, though I wonder if it was a little premature. Another editor mentioned a 1RR being imposed on Mabelina, and I think that would have been a better route to go down for now. I'd certainly have been willing to keep an eye on Mabelina along with User:Miesianiacal. Appreciate that this ship might have sailed, but I thought I'd raise it now anyway in case an appeal against the block is forthcoming. Frinton100 (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both. Frinton100, you're a patient person. If Mabelina posts a reasonable unblock request, showing some understanding of the problems and withdrawing the legal threats, I wouldn't object to an unblock. In fact, why don't you make the 1RR suggestion on their page? If they request unblock offering a trade — unblock against a voluntary 1RR (or 0RR) ban — it might impress the reviewing admin. To my way of thinking, it doesn't seem altogether likely on past showing that they will post a reasonable request… but why not give it a try. Bishonen | talk12:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC).
Mid-40s = middle-aged? It may be true, but you didn't have to say it. BTW, unlike Frinton100, I think the block was overdue.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I too consider mid-40s to be middle aged, though I reserve the right to review my opinions in about 8 years per WP:CCC. On the issue at hand, I don't think I'll be heading back to Mabelina's talk page any time soon unless I'm pinged, as I imagine it will only create more hostility. I have just been looking at Mabelina's contributions on the French, Spanish and Italian sites, and unbelievably he has been peddling the same factual inaccuracy on the French version of Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015 as he did on the English version. Sadly, I suspect that all this block is going to do is move the problems across the channel, but we shall see; let's hope for the best. Frinton100 (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me for butting in here, but I want to say that I considered making the 1RR/0RR proposal to Mabelina; I'm feeling just a tad guilty for having made the report that got him indef blocked (though I don't know why). However, I then realised he would likely regard the suggestion, coming from me, as me trying to "control" him on Wikipedia, or something like that. He already made a vague accusation about just that at AN/I. @Frinton100:, though, you are someone Mabelina seemed to listen to; more than me, anyway. If anyone's going to make the offer to Mabelina at his talk, I'd say it should be you. (Not to say you must or should do it, or anything like that.) --₪MIESIANIACAL20:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The decorative arts
My dear Mrs Bishonen, I have decided to share some of my wide knowledge of the decorative arts with the wider public - pearls before swine, but one must perceviere. Darlingest Giano has begun writing up the contents of Scrotum Towers and in my capacity as doting aunt, fairy helper and red link avoider, I have just attempted to start a new page Garniture; however, imagine my shock to discover that such a page has already been created and deleted. Would you be so kind to wave your magic wand and have a look and see why and then re-instate it tout de suitest. I expect it's because the average Wikipedia person does not possess object d'arts such as are found in homes such as mine and possibly yours. Kindest regards The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
That article, from 2008, need by no means concern you, m'lady. I think the person who created it (since blocked) may have been aiming for Wiktionary. This was the article in toto: "noun. 1. Something that garnishes; an embellishment." Compare, indeed, the Wiktionary entry. What a lovely nature is yours, to spend your declining years improving this dubious project! Bishonen | talk15:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC).
It is completed! My greatest work, my opus mundi, garniture; I feel it's a great gift to Wikipedia - do feel free to nominate for featured article, if you can't control yourself. I sometimes wonder, as I'm sure you do too, dearest Mrs Bishonen, if you and I are not the only Wikipedian ladies (I use the term loosely) who dine each evening, even when alone fully dressed - me with my diamond parure and you with your very pretty beads, but both of us with our surtout de tables firmly in place. Standards may be falling, but you and unite to maintain them. Much love The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Huh what? You must have something … modern … enabled, in the way of a skin or VisualEditor or something of that. I don't see any "related articles". (And if I did, it wouldn't be Thylacine. The idea of it.) All I can see is your beautiful exclusive references. A helpful stranger has added Category:Antiques to your page, that's all. RexxS can you tell what's going on that makes me and Lady C see different things? Bishonen | talk15:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC).
I don't see any thylacines either, but I watchlisted the page, both because of the impressive notes posing as references, and because I want to see how long it takes before the "no fun allowed"-mob paste a CSD-template on it. Thomas.W talk18:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I rather think you will find young man that most educated people will know what a garniture is - what else would they have their on their chimneypiece? Therefore, no reference is really required - rather like "rain is wet." That impeccable references have been provided is just icing the cake. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Aunt Catherine is extremely distressed by this. Beneath her magical, sparkling prose it a section:
Related articles
Buckingham Palace (official London residence and principal workplace of the British monarch)
Thylacine (extinct species of carnivorous marsupial)
Windsor Castle (medieval English castle)
Naturally, two of those are places my aunt would expect to be related to her article; especially as she has been a guest in both so often, but a thylacine (whatever that is) one would not expect. In fact, my aunt feels it's probably something contracted by an unwell Wikipedian. Giano(talk)17:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
There is no such section when I look at the page. I think we'll have to wait for RexxS to come out of his hibernation, unless some other clever code-aware user, or extinct marsupial, would like to help? User:Johnuniq? Bishonen | talk17:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC).
Ah, no, not our bibs — I've read the article now. It's lovely, really pretty, and very informative! I'm so glad you're branching out into content creation. I may try it some time. Bishonen | talk20:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC).
Yes, you must try it sometime - I strongly recommend it: "to share one's knowledge is to guarantee one's place in Heaven" or so some dear little priest, Giano invited to luncheon one day over Christmas, intimated to me; I suspect he may be Wikipedia editor too. I feel a strongly referenced article can only be a source for good. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure why thylacine was selected, but the "related articles" section is part of the Read More experiment. You can get rid of it in your Preferences under Beta. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Nikki. Do you have any notion why Lady C was part of the experiment, and must engage witrh her preferences to escape from it, while I never have been? I mean, we're both experienced editors. And it would be most interesting to know why Lady C's brilliant new decorative arts article was associated with marsupials. Have you perhaps kept one as a pet, m'lady? Bishonen | talk19:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC).
My guess would be A/B testing, but I don't know that for sure, and the documentation has not been updated. But the Lady is not the only one getting it. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Well I have just logged in to admire the prose, and can now see three totally new related articles: Related articles: Germany (country in central Europe);
Niobium (chemical element with the atomic number of 41); and Washington, D.C. (capital city of the United States). It's bloody ridiculous - how can any of those be related? No wonder the youth of today is confused. Giano(talk)22:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes, I got it because I watch MusikAnimal's page, and then I glimpsed your report (and then it disappeared). Time is going backwards. Bishonen | talk18:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for the decisive admin action in the Mabelina case. Just to answer your implied query, in the thread Viriditas refered to him as "she". Other people (including in fact RHaworth, the last blocker), also call him she. I wanted to correct that pronoun usage (in particular since in the past the assumption that he is a female, likely in his 20s, had caused people to give him more and more and more rope). Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
(Why would people assume somebody's in their twenties? Do they realize how many old fogeys edit Wikipedia?) Putting it right at the head of your comment, the burden of which was that the user ought to be blocked indefinitely, certainly made it sound like a criticism. Better to use "they" than either he or she, anyway. I get called "he" all the time — I don't care, and don't correct people — but as a little old Swedish lady, who edits under a name that implies I'm a young Japanese boy, I'm touchy about anything that looks like a username complaint. Free the usernames! Bishonen | talk22:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC).
Quiet seems impossible on those articles -- vide [15] ascribing acts which might be of a criminal nature to an organization for which living persons are named, and for which he deems no consensus is needed for edit warring into an article, [16] where he thinks a producer of Nightline for ABC news and a known journalist would fake an AP article <g>, all of the Rick Alan Ross related edits, including [17] for which he made absolutely no attempt at discussion other than insisting he needs it in the BLP, and on and on -- and noting an extraordinary amount of "edit overlap" with some editors who were topic banned in the past from the entire Scientology area, and his ongoing edit-war of sorts with Ronz who is trying their best to deal with Sfarney as well -- including the ever-popular "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience." Is there a 1% chance that something is amiss? Collect (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Not once he started playing the victim to our evil oppression of his vulnerable Christian minority, no. To be honest, however, I started wondering if it was Til right about when he claimed to have had an ivy league education in comparative religion. I don't even have any interactions with him in the past, however. I just knew him by reputation. I suppose that says quite a bit. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.19:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Would you please take a look at MarathiPaulPadtePudhe. They are a "new user" who I noticed because they had a small cut/paste copyvio on a new article. After I left them a note I noticed they had a talk page archive after one day. Rather than one copyvio I saw they already had several warnings so the issue may be beyond the "sternly worded message stage". Thank you. JbhTalk12:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Done, one month. Let me know if and when you'd like more. I see Favonian already indefprotected your userpage; good thinking. Bishonen | talk21:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC).
Tweeting
Tell me Mrs Bishonen, do you tweet? I have been inundated with requests to do so, but having opened an account, can't understand the mechanics of of all! How does one begin to share one's opinion and then follow the many who will doubtless agree with me? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand it either, I had to give up. The mystery is that editing Wikipedia, pretty much the only thing on the Internet that I can manage, is supposed to be quite baffling, while everybody except you and me can handle these modern inventions such as facebook and twitter. Could there be something about being wellbred ladies that prevents us? Would a kind talkpage stalker like to link us to some very basic instructions? Bishonen | talk21:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC).
I'm a wellbred gentleman, and I can't figure it out, either. Of course, I may differ slightly in the sense that I don't want to figure it out. Notwithstanding, I want to take this opportunity to thank you, Lady Catherine, for your posts to Bishonen's Talk page lately. They are a pleasure to read and often are the only thing that brightens up my Wikipedia days. Also, many congratulations on your article!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The secret to Twitter is that it is all about who you follow. Follow interesting people in fields you are curious about like museum curators, scientists, musicians, journalists, comedians, etc. If you find someone who has similar interests to yours, go to see who they follow to see if there are other interesting individuals that you never knew about. And some of these folk might follow you back.
Many new users use Twitter to broadcast their opinions to the world and are disappointed when no one pays attention to them. But unless you have something to offer the world (often, it's humor, news or insights about life), no one is going to seek you out. Find people who interest you, respond to their Tweets that you find amusing and it's likely, if they aren't some huge celebrity, that they will respond back. And that's how connections are made. LizRead!Talk!21:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC) (been on Twitter for 8 years now)
My dear Liz (surely not just "Liz" but Dame Liz or Countess Liz -- do give us the means to properly address you), it is concerning that you question whether Lady Catherine indeed has "something to offer the world." And the idea that she should "follow" disreputable sorts such as comedians and journalists is not on. I trust that in future you shall choose your words more carefully. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I am just "Liz" and I don't defer to the aristocracy (even faux aristocrats). They can adapt to the modern world or stay in their estates, clutching their pearls and ranting about how democracy has destroyed the world. ;-) LizRead!Talk!02:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Well it's all quite extraordinary. My dear nephew signed me in and three people immediately requested that I follow them - one Erik Moeller and someone else called Philippe Beaudette all Wikipedians; now isn't that interesting - how did they know I was there? Anyway, I had a look at what they were tweeting, and it was frightfully dull, so I don't think I will bother to follow them. Now there's somebody called Holly Willoughby begging me to follow her - poor dear, looks like she's lost the three bears. I must say this doesn't look to be the brightest place. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Your nephew seems to have provided your Wikipedia username (I would never let them have mine), so it's no wonder they found you. Now my own Twitter account, long dormant and very secret, has finally found something brighter to do: follow you! Though I really don't know how that works. I mean, I believe I am following Barack Obama, and have been for some time, but what has come of it..? Nothing much. And one keeps having to log in, which is very boring. As soon as one has been absent for a few years, one is again logged out. Yawn. Bishonen | talk22:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC).
I'm sorry, are we being judged on the quality of our posts to Bishonen's talk page? Must they be "a pleasure to read"? Must one first present one's calling card to Bishonen's footman? I'm dreadfully sorry that I so ignobly stumbled into this venue without observing the proper protocol. I will immediately forthwith retire to my winter residence and await the proper amount of time, and proper invitation, before venturing into these premises anytime soon. Yours, etc., Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
These talkpages are a pleasure to follow. What else do we need, except from daily hugs from our loved ones? But alas, I don't even have a smartphone. When my phone falls down and is broken, I go to a shop and ask for the cheapest phone they've got - and I mean really cheapest. Ah, what a nice quiet life! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!05:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Well I don't know at all! It all seems very complicated, how will Mr Cameron know I'm advising him if no one tells him. I need to know how to post on his page. As for that young man above - you young people today spend far too much time fiddling about with these wretched phones. My grandchildren constantly have them to hand, even daring to look at them when they are being address by me! Then, when I call them, they never answer. "Oh it's on silent Granny" - Oh is it indeed! For a generation in a constant state of communication, there seems to be precious little dialogue. Now back to Mr Cameron how do I to get his attention - some one has to tell the poor man where he's going wrong - and then there's that dreadful American Trump man, I don't care for him at all. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Mr Cameron cares about what you, me or anyone else thinks. Like all elected place office holders he's only interested in the power his position gives him, and will do anything, and promise anything, to get re-elected. Thomas.W talk11:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I took a close look at Twitter a year or so ago and found it to be a total waste of time. Everyone has an opinion about just about everything, but very few have an opinion that matters to me, so the signal to noise ratio is about 0.001:99.999. And finding the very few tweets that matter is near impossible, making Twitter totally unusable. Thomas.W talk11:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that SFarny is likely not there to genuinely work to improve the article or the related Scientology/CAN articles. I recognize I may be being over sensitive to a different POV but their aggregate edits and behavior make me think that is less likely than not. Is this something blatant enough that you can handle under DS, should it go to AE or an I simply being over sensitive? JbhTalk13:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree. The current bit that a 501(c)(3) corporation is not an "educational nonprofit corporation" just because SFarney says that is a lie is getting past the Monty Python level, to be sure. Collect (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I have warned Sfarney twice on his page, stating the second time that if there's another transparent attempt to make Ross look bad, I'll topic ban him. I will, too. While I agree with you about the "chicken shit tactic", Jbhunley, it hardly rises to such an attempt. I also agree that there's a cumulative effect of ill will, but that's a bit subtle, and I doubt such an argument would fare well on AE. Take it there if you disagree, of course (I won't be offended or anything). Bishonen | talk15:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for the input. I will not go to AE now, you seem to have a good eye on the situation. They lost my AGF but it is true they have not done anything egregous since your last warning. Cheers. JbhTalk16:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You've got a point. Still, if nobody has noticed it for four years, why would they care now? Hmmm. Do you think I should revdel it? It's easily done. Bishonen | talk21:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC).
Everytime I happen to stumble upon user Libstar and user James500 edits they are at kindergarten level, attacking each other and baiting each other to continue bickering. It takes one glance at their talk pages to see how they are disrupting each others Wiki-lives :) Especially Libstar who has been an editor here for years should know better. Anyway, just letting you know. Regards,BabbaQ (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Channar revolt
Hey Bishonen. I am here to talk about the recent edits made by Rabtman to the Channar revolt article. He has added refs to support his claims. However I doubt the validity of these refs. Rabtman is primarily here to glorify Nair relevant articles(please go through his history). He has inlcuded lines like the nadars were untouchacbles etc. Now this is a very complicated topic. According to Hardgrave and Templeman, leading anthropologists on this topic, the nadars were not untouchables. Some nadars were historically land lords. So the term Nadar today refers to all these different Nadars subcastes. The former status of all these Nadar subcastes were different from each other. So this is something we have to discuss. Most of the lines seem to glorify the Nair community(most of his edits to). I didnt revert his edits. I didnt do anything. Because I am tired of all this. My account is currently used by wife as I am very busy nowadays. Admins do not usually intervene to edit nadar pages. But I have done my best to keep the page as neutral as possible. I actually started editing because a long time ago the page was heavily attacked anti-nadar groups. I think that trend is coming back now. Please go through the recent made by rabtman to the chanar revolt article. He claims that the Nair women were allowed to cover their upper body. This topic has always baffled me. According to the Nair wiki article, the nairs didnt cover their upper bodies(men and women). I would be obliged if you would go through the recent edits made by rabtman to the chanar revolt article. Most of the lines he included do not make sense. I am pretty thorough with this topic. I am willing to help you by providing you whatever info I can(I have the Hardgrave and Templeman book with me). And since Sitush(one of the few who can understand this topic) away, I dont have many options. If you are busy please recommend me some other editor who might be interested to edit these pages. I just want these articles to be maintained by neutral editors(Like the Nair article). Thank you for your time.Mayan302 (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for sounding the alert, Mayan302. My impression is that Rabt man's additions are too detailed and also unacceptably close to Channa's wording. But yes, it's a very complicated topic — too complicated for me, I'm afraid. We all miss Sitush indeed. Perhaps you could appeal to Joshua Jonathan? Note, please ask your wife to create an account of her own, as one account is for one person. See WP:ROLE. Bishonen | talk12:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC).
Actually I just instruct to do things. She just follows my orders and her opinion is actually mine. I will talk to Mr. Johnathan.Mayan302 (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan, please don't feel it's necessarily your duty to mediate. Try, by all means, but if somebody's actually disruptive (whether with good intentions or not), call on an admin and explain the situation. For instance me. Bishonen | talk17:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC).
P.S. to Mayan302 and Joshua Jonathan: I have alerted Rabt man to the existence of discretionary sanctions for India-, Pakistan-, and Afghanistan-related pages. Nobody has done that before (somewhat to my surprise) as far as I can see, and he should be aware of them. Bishonen | talk17:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC).
This was all obviously very well co-ordinated, and I must commend Mayan302 for that. Very well done. I am getting tired of being hounded by all of you, and I am sure you are all happy to revert every single edit I made. When I had tried to remove blatant POV from the Nair article, I was constantly attacked or when I had actually begun to have more experience in this wiki and say why, I was ignored. When I tried to edit these other articles and expand upon them, this SPA goes to almost every editor I have had trouble with in the past and tell them to revert me. Although the neutral editors (Sitush, Bishonen, Joshua Johnathan?) may not be the most willing to hear, I have one last thing to say to you all. There are many different types of people who are working with you that have added horrible POV statements which reflected far from the truth, or have used this as a medium to glorify their caste. The sources itself were terrible (there are syrian christian glorification authors in the Nair article, saying various statements brought about by various editors). The most stupid reasons were given to harass the Nair article, and there was even a legend which said that the Nairs are descended from Dogs. This was later disproved, and recognized as complete nonsense but many more stupid things exist in these caste based articles. Some of you have even exceeded 3RR, and put false edit summaries without even reading the diffs. And this is supposedly ok.
You have enforced this POV unknowingly. My examples of editors include Mayan302, Cartick, the sockpuppets of Kondotty Sultan, Achayan, etc. Look at their revision history. What you say is glorification of the Nair caste was given through citations, and what you think of as glorification is the truth. A ton of statements which were the truth (truth reflected by citations, not only by common knowledge), but yet supposedly offensive to others does not mean glorification. People will resort to sock-puppeting etc as they will not know how to prove their point which they see as obvious.
As being some of the so-called neutral editors of caste-based articles you have to realize that you could stop all the other SPA's, socks,etc if you all stop claiming ownership of the articles, listen to what the common IP's and editors have to say, and stop bullying others. I understand you are more experienced with wikipedia than I am, but you are unknowingly screwing it up as much as the vandals are by supporting the ones who are truly out to destroy the identities of other castes. I am not one of them. I am not here for a pro-Nair glorification agenda. I had removed obvious nonsense (or at least proposed to), and added reliable citations for those statements which were the truth.
I am tired of you all taking sides and harassing those you do not agree with. Reflect upon what you have done as well, before attacking other editors. Realize that you are being manipulated into attacking other castes, or possibly doing it so on purpose. I don't know, I do not care, but you are enforcing wrongs, and letting them slip in. Rabt man (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen
Today when I was out I tried to check my watchlist on my phone, not something I normally do. Up came a message that says you have blocked the 172.56.32.xxx ip range. This is a range belonging to TMobile a major cell phone carrier. When will this block end? AlbinoFerret02:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to hear it, AlbinoFerret. I didn't block a very big part of TMobile, though! I blocked the 172.56.32.0/22 range, theoretically 1024 IPs, for one month, on 29 January 2016. There was a lot of disruptive block evasion by an indeffed user coming from it. I've had to do that several times over the past few years wrt the same individual, and this is actually the first time anybody has complained. (Well, excepting the individual, they have been pretty annoyed.) I do realize that new users, who don't know how to complain, may also have been affected. Still, it's been some pretty bad disruption. If I leave the block in place, it'll expire on 29 February. What do you say, how much does the range block incommode you? If a lot, I'll lift it. Bishonen | talk14:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC).
I was more interested in finding when it was going to end. Leave it be if its going to expire in a month. I dont normally edit from my phone, and I was just checking my watchlist because I was bored where I was at. Its a minor inconvenience for me and if it stops disruption that inconveniences more people its worth it. I figured it had to be for something bad to block a major cell phone provider. AlbinoFerret16:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I just looked up the history of TE -- did not previously know this person -- so that's a strong negative, very different malefactor indeed. Mine is the guy who does this. He's such a magnificent comedian it's almost a shame to shut him down. Antandrus(talk)17:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. I think User Eeditflyover is a sock of Profile101. The user edits exactly like him. Can you please take a look at this. I would open an SPI, however I don't have much time to do this nowadays. Thanks. Class455fan1(talk)20:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bish, I left a message on his page explaining to him not to block evade again, but he doesnt want to listen to me. Can you please explain it to him. Thanks. Class455fan1(talk)07:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for trying, Class455fan1, but you see how it is. He doesn't understand — he's so far from understanding that it's pointless to try any more explaining. Now I see the sock says he's not "the main user from" Profile101, because he has a different e-mail... so he should be unblocked... Now come on, please stop editing Wikipedia till after your exams! If you want another self-requested block, just let me know. Bishonen | talk09:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC).
My exams start from May 17. The ones which I have just done were mock exams (and three real ones), so I will ask for a three month block on April 1 maybe. Till then, I'll edit. Its funny how he still claims he is not a sock when it's pretty obvious he is! Class455fan1(talk)10:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
He doesn't understand the meaning of the word. How would he be able to give the e-mail addy of Profile101 if they weren't the same person? Bishonen | talk10:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC).
As part of that right, Bish, thanks for replying to me. Hope enjoy a nice day, and if you archive all the messages again, please add a archive 21 on your userpage, because I don't to get evade a block (which I cannot edit my own talkpage after that, just like what happen to 5 other socks). Same thing, have a nice day! This User ProfileBath will not harrass people.ProfileBath (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Vandal Protection
Hello, how are you? Sorry to disturb, but there seems to be an edit war going on at Sallekhana. It was subject to protection as well some months earlier as IP's were vandalising it spamming with the word Suicide. Please see [18] and Talk:Sallekhana. Can you please help? Thanks! -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo(talk·contribs·count)19:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
February 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Bernie Sanders, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Even if you're an admin. You still can't change someone's comments just because you don't find it respectful. Many people call him Bernie.It's not like he's posting that in the article.Sir Joseph(talk)22:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't believe you just sent me that template. I've seen you be unreasonable before, but this is something special. Are you trying to make me "involved" w r t you, and thereby unable to topic ban you, by being ridiculous on my page? It's not going to work. Bishonen | talk22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC).
not at all, I just reverted your edit. Are you saying that an admin is above getting warned? Your revert deserved it. I would have done it for anyone. You're not above the rules. Why are you threatening to topic ban me?Sir Joseph(talk)22:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Of course I'm not threatening to topic ban you. I wouldn't dream of topic banning you over being offensive on my page, or over reverting me. Admins are used to nonsense. But I did warn you recently that I would topic ban you from the Arab-Israeli pages if you persisted in your uncollegial editing habits.[19][20] That warning stands. And it's the only possible reason I can think of for you to come to my page and make such a fool of yourself. Not only admins, but all experienced users, are "above" being welcomed to Wikipedia and told how they can learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia, as I have already told you. I warned you just a week ago about abuse of warning templates.[21] And here you are with with Template:uw-tpv1. Amazing. Now do yourself a favour, go away. Don't post again. Bishonen | talk22:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC).
Sir Joseph's post is complete nonsense. If someone starts a talk page discussion with an inappropriate heading, it is perfectly reasonable for another editor to fix it. Other editors may disagree about what heading should be used, but no competent editor would post a ridiculous warning regarding such a disagreement. My suggestion would be to actually read WP:TPO which includes "no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate...". Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
POV edits
An anon editor is trying to add POV lines to the Nadar(caste) article by using an unreliable source. I have already reverted his edits many times. I am not sure what I should do next. Could you please look into this issue when you are free. Please advice me what I should do next. Thank you Mayan302 (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
And now I see there's a new user (ho hum, cough cough, I seem to have something in my throat) talking about the issue on your page, Mayan302. I will warn them sharply — once I've had breakfast — and semi the article if it turns out to be necessary. But note that even while you're defending the article against socks and POV-pushers, you need to be very careful of 3RR, Mayan, or you may be blocked yourself. Our rules don't always favour the good guys I'm afraid. You did right to notify me. Bishonen | talk10:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC).
You know very well that the snowman looks nothing like you. (It does look a bit like me though.) You have reply mail. --RexxS (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
WAIT! ... someone actually knows what Bishonen looks like? That little curiosity has been eating at me for years. :-) — Ched : ? 19:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen At this ANI closure I was asked to report to you if further problems arose at Abdulaziz Al-Babtain This morning a 61kB addition - even longer than the previously removed material - was made by a new SPA User:Ibrahimaldawoud. Could I ask you to take some action - possibly a block and semi-protection? - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Arjayay. The new account behaves rather differently from Ibkib, in that he has responded to you — something Ibkib never did — so I'm assuming good faith. Of course he still has a COI, and I've written some explanations to him. Diannaa has semi'd the article. Bishonen | talk16:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC).
Hello, yes the situation was confusing because the Helper Bot (that removes blocked usernames from the UAA list) apparently only has one edit summary for its edits, always the same, even if it removes the same username for the 2nd time. Anyways. Haha, your weighing in indeed in agreement with your template. Or is it a self-fulfilling prophecy ;-) ? Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC).
I have been on WP for 10 years, been involved in hundreds of deletion discussions and seen dozens of relistings. I have never seen an admin too impatient to wait out a relist on an AFD with 2 deletes and 1 keep. I have never ever seen a relist of this sort overruled as a delete. 2 to 1! Do you always regard 2 to 1 as a consensus? It is as if you are more desperate than any other admin to see one of my pages deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Tony, I realize you probably have more experience of AfD than me, but I wouldn't say I "overruled" the relister. As I told them, they ought to have given admins more than a few hours after the regular 7 day mark to assess consensus (something that is normally the function of an admin at that board) before relisting, and before deciding off their own (non-admin) bat that consensus wasn't clear. IMO it was clear. There were three well-argued delete (counting the nominator, naturally — why would they be excluded?) and one keep (yours). The people who said to delete explained their rationales fully, as did you, and they replied conscientiously and with very good arguments (again, IMO) to your arguments. You yourself seemed quite impressed with this one. As of course you know, having been involved in so many deletion discussions, consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. Bishonen | talk23:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC).
P.S. Have we met? Is there any reason I'd be more desperate than any other admin to see one of your pages deleted? "Desperate"? Really? Bishonen | talk23:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC).
Honestly, I expected a deletion rather than a relisting, but once relisted, it should be allowed to run the additional time (week or so). Whether or not the relist was the best decision, the debate should have remained open. You analyzed the decision as if there had not been an existing decision. However, at the time of your decision to delete, the question was whether relist was unreasonable. Your job was not to assess the consensus anew, but rather whether the relist was unreasonable. There was little reason to shut the discussion down, given that it had been relisted. I don't know if we have met. I probably participate in about 200 deletion discussions a year as a discussant by my estimation. This is a fairly modest number compared to the XFD regs, but over time these numbers add up. I don't know how many you close or if we have crossed paths. However, overruling a relist is a very different thing than closing an open unevaluated discussion if you ask me. If this article had a good chance to be kept, the argument would be more worthwhile. If I were you, I would spend my time on discussions in need of immediate attention rather than recent relistings. A discussion one day into a relist period is a way lower priority than the many deletion discussions that are past their full discussion period. It was well on its way to an uncontroversial deletion. If the film actually is released in theatres or on VOD with additional sources noting so, the article can be restored.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
You take my question too literally, so let me put it more bluntly: Where do you think you get off accusing me — a user that to the best of my knowledge you have never had the most distant contact with — of being "desperate" to see specifically your pages deleted? As for your opinion that a non-admin gets to make the decision to relist, and this decision is then binding for all admins who didn't happen to be around for the 3-hour window between the full seven days and the relisting, why not take it to WP:DRV to see if people agree with you. Bishonen | talk14:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC).
There is little reason for a DRV, but all I am saying is that admins who spend their time reevaluating relist decisions are doing about the least productive work an admin can do. I have never heard of an admin wasting their time re-evaluating relists. Thus, I question the motives of an admin who does so. I have been on both sides of relists and have never seen anyone overturn a relist as an immediate delete. Desperate or overzealous are words I consider relevant. It is highly irregular for an admin to be doing that. When any XFD is listed if only three responses that are not in agreement are rendered it is not inappropriate to relist.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I just saw that GeForce 1000 series has been deleted. I understand the reasoning for the decision for but I'd prefer to have it moved to the Draft namespace instead of deleted so that it can be revived when naming is known (and notability is reached, which is just a matter of months since release is expected Q2, or at most Q3). It would be appreciated if you made it happen. Thanks for your time.
Sure. I think I may have subconsciously decided to forget about that option because I wasn't sure how. But of course I'll have a go, how hard can it be? Bishonen | talk14:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC).
Thanks! I think moving to the Draft namespace is occasionally preferred over deletion but in those cases often overlooked (especially in cases of WP:CRYSTAL). Glad I can be of use by reminding of the option. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Duff House Royal Golf Club
Greetings. This article is up at AfC. I see that you deleted an earlier version of it (twice!). Can you please take a look at it in its current form? Seems to be well sourced, and while positive, I think it does not rise to the level of advertising. If you agree, could you allow it to be approved? Thanks for your time. Onel5969TT me13:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm still not completely happy about the sourcing, but I'll be happy to leave these things to the AfC regulars. I've unprotected the article and left a comment. I do realize that the sourcing Robert complained about belonged to an earlier version, even if I sound as if I don't... and I certainly don't object to it being created, if you guys are cool with it. Bishonen | talk15:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC).
Thanks. I think it just barely passes (and I mean barely), but the editor has been making a good faith effort to improve, so I wanted to move it to the mainspace and help him improve it. There are some good sources out there in books. Onel5969TT me15:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Good thinking, I'm glad to hear it. This user has been trying hard for a long time; first he had to wait to get his name changed, while his original promotional name was blocked, and I took it to ANI for assistance. (I didn't quite want to tell him "Oh never mind, just abandon that account and create a new one", when he was being so proper...) There was a good ANI discussion about how bad it is that the system keeps good-faith newbies waiting for stuff like that. Some changes were proposed, and I hope implemented... afraid I lost sight of it, because when it's about name change, I don't understand above half of what I'm told. But, anyway, this user got help quickly after that. Thanks for helping him. Bishonen | talk15:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC).
Adding a template into another template
Hey. Happy New Year to ya. Question. How do you add a template into another template? Such as This. And by the way? Nice crazy image of Laurel & Hardy! King Shadeed 19:11, February 19, 2016 (UTC)
I'm very touched to be approached as an expert on templates! Finally recognition! However… all I know is they sometimes, but not always, spit up when you try to add one inside another, and then you have to perform some magic. Pinging User:RexxS. Meanwhile, please say here which template you wish to add inside that one, King Shadeed. Yes, the boys are hypnotic, aren't they? I've been told people sometimes never get round to posting here because they get stuck staring entranced at the dance. Bishonen | talk09:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC).
That's a navigation template, commonly called a navbox when horizontal, King Shadeed. So there are fixed procedures to include what we call "child" navboxes inside the main navbox. In simplest terms, you use the |list1=, |list2=, etc. parameters in the main template to make new rows, which can either be (1) lists (like Rupert Murdoch and Chase Carey), where you add the |group1=, etc. parameter to make a row heading like "Corporate directors"; or (2) a child navbox (like {{Fox Entertainment Group|child}} which is the value of |list2=. You can find detailed instructions at the documentation page for Template:Navbox. HTH, --RexxS (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I already linked the not-as-simple terms (in case somebody missed it). Of course, an expert on templates like yourself will probably find the 39 kB of text there pretty straightforward. I apologise for not thinking. --RexxS (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much gentlemen. King Shadeed 18:40, February 22, 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. Due to preparations for my upcoming GCSE exams in May, I would like to be blocked from editing from Monday 29 February until 15:30 UK Time on Friday June 17 (this is the date of my last exam). I want to keep on editing until the first week of the new month (which begins on Feb 29th). This should give me plenty of time to prepare for these exams. During the next week, closer to the time, i will place notices on my user and talk page saying that I will be away. Also, if its possible, can I also have a block template placed on my talk page reading this? (I do apologise if i break any guidelines by doing this, I don't intend to.). Im not sure if you can edit the template if you block using TW:
You have been blocked from editing until 15:30, 17/06/16 so that you can focus on preparing for your exams. Your talk page and email access have also been revoked. Once your exams are finished, you are welcome to resume editing Wikipedia.
(and anything else if you want to add anything)
And an Edit Summary reading this when placing the template on my page (if you can)
(You have been blocked temporarily from editing Wikipedia so that you can prepare for your exams (TW))
Sorry if this seems silly, but i would like it, so that people know i cannot edit my talk if they leave a message there. Also, it actually seems quite funny, as its an unusual template. Also, can you do me a favour while I am blocked, which is that if something appears on my talk page which is not from a bot, if allowed to, please can you check it, and if possible, answer it? I will ask Anna Frodesiak to do the same nearer the time.
I'd also just let you know in advance, as you were wondering once when I will stop editing Wikipedia for my exams. Well, next Monday, I will be. I will remind you on this thread on the night before the block, in case you forget. Thanks, and have a nice day ! Class455fan1(talk)00:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bish! Just to remind you, you can block me anytime tonight from 19:00 UK time onwards. If you can, please place the template above my talk after you block (you can modify and sign it if you feel like it). I received my exam timetable on Friday, and the last one is definitely on June 17 and ends at 15:30, so you can set that as the expiry time. Hope you are well! Thanks. Class455fan1(talk)13:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I think I might run into technical trouble if I tried to do an "X days and Y hours" block, Class455fan1 — not sure the system would swallow it — so I'll simply block you tonight for 110 days, OK? That's until 19:00, June 17 if I've counted the weeks right. I hope you can find some form of celebration other than Wikipedia for those extra hours after your last exam. Why not party with your mates? Bishonen | talk15:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC).
Thats exactly what i plan to do. Have a party with my mates. I may perform a couple of edits the next day maybe. Yes, a block for 110 days will be cool, just put that in the template. After all, I need a break from this place! I just asked Siri how long it is, and you are correct. It is 110 days. I will make my last edit soon before the block. Class455fan1(talk)15:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Im guessing somewhere in Scandinavia, or Iceland. I thought you were Japanese, as you have something on your talk page saying "How to pronounce my name in Japanese". I didnt mean to be personal. Thanks for fixing my move error! God, i seriously do need a break from here! Class455fan1(talk)17:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it'll do you a world of good! No, I'm not Japanese indeed, and actually not even a manga/anime fan. I only put the pronunciation aid on my page so I could look it up in case I needed to pronounce my name… mostly, anyway. Bishonen | talk17:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC).
Ok Bish, Its time to block me! Please watch over my talk page while I'm away and please use the template and edit summary when you block. Thank you for everything and see you in June! Class455fan1(talk)19:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bish, I'm not requesting your intervention yet, but I did want to point out (I'm sure you got my ping) that user Rcrox restored the same content I was disputing at Rocky Rajesh, which was the impetus for the page protection I requested. Obviously he has been regularly editing while logged out, since everywhere he's been in the last month [23][24][25][26] contain edits just before his by IPs in the 112.134.* range, the same range that the "Extra Fighter" content came from. I've dropped him a clear note on his talk page and will stall him out for little bit before requesting anything of ya. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I saw your ping and took care of it before looking here. :-) Wrong order maybe… but I really thought it was time for a block. And everything considered, a longer protection may have to be the next thing, sigh. You know, I think sometimes these people are scared to discuss because their English isn't good. In such cases I sympathize, but in the long run complete unresponsiveness just won't work on a collaborative project. Bishonen | talk09:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC).
You know, I did look at that edit, but without comprehension — the subject is so remote from my areas of expertise that I have trouble identifying vandalism. I was hoping you'd tell me. :-) Also, it didn't seem Rcrox would need to edit logged out, as his block had expired. But WP:CIR can of course take all sorts of shapes. Semi'd for two weeks. But blocks.. why? What blocks? If he logs in to override the semi and insert the same crap, then I'll block, certainly. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC). Adding: what about the IP's other edits? I've started stupidly at them too. Bishonen | talk22:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC).
Hey again, your point is correct about the IP blocks--semi-protection would prevent them from editing. I wasn't thinking. The matter isn't about vandalism, but it is about edit-warring and sockpuppetry now. My original question was about whether or not this content belongs in the article. I don't happen to know what "Extra fighter" means and Rcrox hasn't bothered to explain. Does it mean that the guy worked as an extra in these films? If so, why do we care about that? I don't know. That seems like something to be hashed out via discussion. Also, where are the sources? I doubt that extras would ever receive credit, although maybe it's possible for stunt crews. So anyway, the point of all this is to foster discussion, which he has ignored again in favor of reinstating the content. I have left him another urging to participate in discussion, so I suppose I'll leave the content in the article for a couple of days--maybe it'll make him feel better--and if he doesn't respond, come back to you. Yay. Exciting. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Crowing
Full of myself today: I blocked a [personal attack removed] account the same minute it was created.[27][28] This has been something of a personal ambition of mine, and today it happened. I admit it was pure luck, but so what? Celebrating with a slice of banoffee pie. Dear talkpage stalker, have some pie and feel free to post examples below of something slick you did, don't be shy! Also awards and congratulations to meeee! Bishonen | talk16:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC).
Now, now, DH. Yes, I saw it; indeed I protected the relevant talkpage for a couple of hours and blocked a couple of socks. Damn you, Collect, yes, I suppose that'll have to be my new ambition now. Bishonen | talk22:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC).
There was a time, eight or nine years ago (I must have been bored) when I used to watch the new user log for a certain troll who had a distinct style of account naming. It was fun to banhammer his sockpuppets before they had a chance to edit even once. That was years ago ... these days I have promises to keep, and miles to go before etc. etc. Pie was good! Thanks! Antandrus(talk)22:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
AN Notice
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Ymblanter, of course I know you're an admin. It doesn't make any difference, because you wouldn't edit an article that's protected due to editing dispute, when you're one of the disputants — would you? It would be more than your head's worth — people get desysopped over stuff like that. But yes, I see it's a communication issue. I just think it should be worked out on article talk, not on your respective user talkpages, where anything can and will be removed at a whim. Also there's always a chance of more eyes, on article talk. And also moreover, it's kind of depressing to see an edit war without a single post on article talk. Please give me a ping if you reckon it's been solved before the two days are up. Bishonen | talk20:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC).
No, obviously I am not going to edit it. There is just not a single fact that we currently disagree on, this is a behavioral problem. The user just does not seem to understand how Wikipedia works (of which the 3RRN report was one of the indications). Normally, they should be shown the direction of the Teahouse, but here we have a late evening, and I do not have the energy to explain them every single detail of the policies. This is in any case not a talk page discussion material.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, well, he's on the talkpage now. Would you consider explaining to him that, and why, he cant copypaste from the Belarus wikipedia without any references, even if that doesn't have to do with the edit war? After a good night's sleep? Don't let Wikipedia keep you awake. I'm always doing that, and it's pretty stupid. (I've told him the AN3 report was a poor idea.) Bishonen | talk 21:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC). (Adding: not that he seems even a little impressed. Sigh.) Bishonen | talk21:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC).)
He already said I am not welcome at his talk page, so it would be best if someone else would do it. Thanks, I will need to go to bed reasonably soon, we have 22:24 here at the moment, and I need to be in the office around 8:00.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I meant, explain on article talk, now that he's there. Precisely to avoid all that stuff about not being welcome, posts being removed, bla bla. Oh, forget it. Bishonen | talk21:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC).
@Bishonen:I would like to chime in and say that Ymblanter has a history of talking down on other editors because he is an administrator and he thinks that he can get away with whatever arbitrary reverts he makes, including in cases where there is nothing at fault stylistically or procedurally. It is a clear case of following WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, which he obviously denies and refuses to discuss, instead issuing threats of administrative sanctions. If he does it, its considered administration, if we do it, its "disruptive".--Damianmx (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)... it is so very very late, That we may call it early by and by. Fortunately, dinosaurs don't sleep, so I've dropped a note on the article talk page. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I've dropped a note too, as the talkpage seems to be at risk of spinning out of control despite your efforts, RexxS. God, is this one of those nationalist disputes? Bishonen | talk22:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC).
Stands a good chance. Be prepared for trouble in any article that goes anything like "... born in <insert country A>, but lived all his adult life in <insert country B> ..." --RexxS (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
As you do your wonderful work of cleaning up a mess, be aware that there were a couple of compromises made at the article talk and the user talk. The "University" has to be addressed due to the PR surrounding it. [29] (Tuition was almost as much as I paid to go to law school back then, just saying...) Montanabw(talk)00:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I admit I didn't read the whole of the talkpage, Montanabw — it was unexpectedly long and repetitious. I see you've restored the bit about how the school was approved by the Colorado Department of Higher Education; it's sourced, indeed — I just thought it was trivial. But maybe it's a fact of more significance that is apparent to me, as a non-American. Anyway, what really struck me, as sort of the common reader who can't tell a horse's head from its ass, was the way sources were used in some places. When I looked up the sources, several of them didn't say anything like what the article text had led me to believe they would. Can't change the sources to fit the article; gotta change the article. :-) And I have, in a few places. If there are objections, I'll come to the talkpage, but so far I think I've been able to give my rationales in the edit summaries. Bishonen | talk15:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC).
(tps aside) -- I'm not so sure most of us Americans can tell a horse's head from its ass either, as any brief study of election year American politics will show... (whoops, did I say that?) Antandrus(talk)16:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
MONGO eats candy...avoids both horse ass and head, so no need to know difference since not on MONGO menu.--MONGO16:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
LOL! What we say out here in the west (because we do know horses, at least in the rural areas) is that someone "doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground." Take that any way you want...(grin) ( =:-O )Montanabw(talk)03:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bish, per this, you were right; wondering if we could put it back in as a supportive comment, with a "both praised and criticized" comment. (You aren't following talk, but the one COI editor thinks we are only saying bad things, so maybe saying something like this would balance things in a harmless fashion...) Montanabw(talk)20:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing, that we could maybe put that guy in as a supporter (he's less saccarine than some of the other well-wishers that have footnotes) — indeed, I tried to write up something, but found it very awkward. You do it. You understand these people. I don't really care for appearing on an article talkpage I never edited, chatting foolishly in a way intended for usertalk — but I suppose it can't be helped. There's not really a natural point at which to slice off the convo, it needs its context, and the move is needed. So that's fine. Since I've been addressed, I'm thinking of saying something in response, because the fact is the article never did say "offers education online". I put it through the wringer. It's such a small point, though. Bishonen | talk21:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC).
OK. Feel free to upgrade the wringer to an agitator! (The thing in the center of the machine that gets out all the dirt!) I'll handle (or not handle) the talk page; I'm about done with talking there. Anything I change that doesn't work, just fix as you see fit. Montanabw(talk)23:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
For your information, the Rick Alan Ross article has had a thread filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. As I wrote this, I see that you are aware, and I see that you have warned Sfarney previously. I see that he has been formally alerted to two sets of discretionary sanctions. (Rick Alan Ross is a BLP, and he sometimes is involved with Scientology.) What I am stating at the talk page is nothing but the basic policy on DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, I'm aware of it because I was pinged by Jbhunley, but I'm not a party — I don't edit the article, nor its talkpage, I just watch it in an admin capacity. I'm concerned with conduct rather than content, so it's highly unlikely I'll be commenting at DRN. Bishonen | talk22:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC).
I wasn't expecting you to participate. At DRN we will try to keep the discussion focused on content, and, in this case, also on policy compliance. (The policy is of course BLP.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed you had requested suppression on a certain user and his actions. I was wondering, if information gets surprised, is it completely erased from the Wikipedia servers? 165.230.224.231 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Note that only a few select users, so-called oversighters, can suppress edits. Suppression is only done in very specific situations, usually to protect privacy. It's easy to confuse suppression with ordinary deletion, which can be done by all admins, and which only removes the material out of sight; it remains in the database, and can be "undeleted" if the need should arise. Bishonen | talk15:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC).
Actually, no it's not; oversighters can still view suppressed edits, so they still exist on the servers, albeit visible to only a relative handful of people. Writ Keeper⚇♔16:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think there was a time where that was more or less the case--if you wanted to unsuppress a thing, you had to get a developer to dig it out of some database or something. But the system has changed now, i believe, and it's not that way anymore. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bish. This is probably going to be a stupid question since I already asked it, but if 1RR doesn't apply to IP's, where can I find this rule written since I can't find this anywhere in WP:EW. (N0n3up (talk) 05:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC))
(talk page stalker) When 1RR is in force on an article, it is almost inevitably due to discretionary sanctions. To be applicable to an editor, it has to be a reasonable assumption that the editor is aware of the discretionary sanctions - usually no action is taken for a breach unless the editor has previously been formally notified. Unfortunately, it is difficult to ensure that the editor behind a dynamic IP has ever seen any such notification. This may well be the reason why you've been told that "1RR doesn't apply to IP's". 'Shonen may know more. --RexxS (talk) 07:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
No, 'shonen knows less, but RexxS is completely logical as always. I hardly suppose it's a rule, as such, it's more that it's hard to hold an IP to a discretionary sanction. Theoretically the rule applies, no doubt, and with a static IP it would be possible to first alert them and then act against them. I'd be surprised if that ever happened in practice, though. If somebody edits a controversial article from an IP, I would say they're likely enough to be doing it to avoid scrutiny. (Bad 'shonen! Assume good faith regardless of circumstances!) It's a problem, certainly, if an account in conflict with an IP is held to 1RR while the IP is not. Did that happen to you, N0n3up? Bishonen | talk08:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC).
No it didn't happen to me. But I was actually referring to a registered user on a 1RR reverting an IP, not an IP on a 1RR. Just wanted to make sure. (N0n3up (talk) 09:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC))
Unexplained Ban
Hi, I didn't understand why I got banned from editing the Muhammad article; I just explained what I did on [30]. I want to appeal the ban: That's why I'm starting the first step (to ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision) here. Can you tell me what's the basement of this ban? Ttt74 (talk) 13:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
What, again? Ttt74, I'm becoming rather concerned about your failure to take in what you're told. Is this a language issue, or lack of care? I told you on ANI that the option of asking the enforcing administrator to reconsider was done, and you should try one of the others (WP:AE or WP:AN or WP:ARCA), as outlined here. You replied. And then you come here, as if I had never spoken. I repeat, I will not lift the ban myself. Go to the next step. Nor will I explain yet again the basis of the ban. I have already done that over and over, on your own page and on ANI. Other people have tried too.
Moreover, you have already violated your topic ban. Please take my warning about that on your page very seriously. I'm willing to assume once that you didn't understand what a topic ban meant, but there's a limit to how long you can get away with that. Read the ban notice properly, click on the links I gave you. Bishonen | talk15:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC).
Er.. sorry, I don't understand your request, Mercy. Please explain what it is you want. You're not blocked, if that's what you think. Bishonen | talk17:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC).
Multi-editor AE requests
In reference to your comment at the Arbitration request page, AE has indeed handled multi-editor requests before. In fact, I've had the experience of filing such a request. It was entitled "Dicklyon and Darkfrog24", in case you'd like to search the archives for it. RGloucester — ☎17:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, right, here it is. Thanks very much, RGloucester, that's interesting. Not least because it's a recent case and it got quite ample admin input despite being about a staggeringly dull subject area. ("Only on Wikipedia could someone be "topic-banned from quotation marks".") That one was about two editors at loggerheads. You don't happen to have experience of an AE case about two (or more) editors accused of illegitimate coordination of edits, I suppose? Or do you, dear talkpage stalkers? Bishonen | talk18:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC).
No, I do not. I imagine that's because there is no way to provide evidence of this sort of off-Wikipedia co-ordination. As I said in my statement, I consider such accusations baseless, and even the filer said that he could not provide direct evidence of co-ordination. If there is to be a case or an AE request, I would suggest that it focus on the on-Wikipedia behaviour of the editors in question, which is something verifiable. Anything else doesn't make any sense, and is an unfair way of allowing PoV warriors to take down a selection of editors they dislike, as Marek himself has said. RGloucester — ☎19:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I reported User:Talbot0 because his name may mislead people into believing that this user is a bot, due to the inclusion of "bot" at the end of his/her username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanlu121 (talk • contribs)
Oh! I never thought of that. I thought you might be thinking of the car! But it really is a person's name, so I think I'll remove the report, if you don't mind, User:Ethanlu121. Bishonen | talk18:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC).
What I wonder is why a user who created his account and started editing only a few days ago has already begun reporting usernames, tag-bombing articles and so on. How about trying to write something instead? --Hegvald (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. No, I won't touch those static IPs — no point anyway — you see how he jumps between them. Let Jimbo clean up his page if he wants. Bishonen | talk09:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC).
Userpage question
Hi Bishonen. I saw that you deleted User:Hassan A. Tajideen per WP:U5 and I have a question about Wikipedia procedure in such cases. I did try to warn the user about U5 with posts on their user talk and at the Teahouse, but I'm not sure if they saw them. Would it have been better for me to simply gone ahead and tagged the page with db-u5 instead?
The reason I'm asking is because I came across User:PhiladelphiaInjustice which also seems a bit inappropriate. It's not really a FAKEARTICLE, but it does seem rather bloggish per USERTALKBLOG. Anyway, just curious as to whether posting such concerns on the editor's user talk is appropriate in such cases or whether it falls under the leeway granted to more experienced editors.
Hi, Marchjuly, I've seen you around doing good work. So Hassan A. Tajideen both tried to post a bio article, and posted to the Teahouse? I didn't know that, as he posted from his IP to the Teahouse, and from another account, User:Hassan tajideen, to his bio: I only saw his contribs as User:Hassan A. Tajideen. (That information was all in your post on his page, of course, but I read it too fast.) I'm sure he simply didn't realize he ought to stick to one account, but the effect was a little unfortunate. I would have had more compunction about deleting his userpage (tagged for speedy by Theroadislong) if I'd known he'd been trying for so long (since 2012!). Well, I would surely have deleted it eventually, but I'd have tried to talk with him first. And that's what you did: tried to talk with him. I think you did the right thing under the circumstances, and I hope he has seen at least one of your posts — if he has, he should have a better grasp of why his bio/userpage keeps getting deleted. The rest of us, Theroadislong and me, didn't actually do anything wrong either, and the outcome was inevitable, but you were kinder.
PhiladelphiaInjustice is a different case. Yes, they're an experienced user who rates some leeway with their pages, but that's a ridiculous userpage. "Although Wikipedia contributors must maintain neutrality when editing articles, I see no problem with me posting opinions on this obscure talk page that nobody will read" — well, I do, rather. (And what makes him think it's a talkpage?) If I were you, I'd write to him as well, linking to WP:USER and specifically perhaps WP:UP#GOALS. I guess it's not a U5, since that criterion talks about "Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages", and he has edited substantially. It would be more a WP:MfD case. But, pragmatically, you know, I think it would also be OK to look away. There's nothing offensive on his page, and none of us have a duty to get into an unpleasant tussle with a user about a not-huge problem. Bishonen | talk09:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC).
Thank you for the reply. I didn't catch that Hassan A. Tajideen had another registered account or had been trying to get his bio posted since 2012. I was pretty sure they were the Teahouse IP, but just figured they forgot to log in when they posted there. As for the other userpage, I'm not sure what I'm going to do, but you might be right in that it's not worth making a mountain out of such a mole hill since it's not offensive and in the grand scheme of things I'm not sure if I want to start playing the role of userpage cop. Anyway, thanks again for the feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi again Bishonen. I have another user page question that I'd like a second opinion on. What's your take on User:Tigerghost. I was going to post something on his user talk, but wanted some feedback first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, it may be borderline, Marchjuly, but I wouldn't bug them about it and potentially hurt their feelings for little benefit. That's a real contributor, even though not exactly "avid" recently (only 20 edits in the past year). I don't mind if they want to talk about themselves some on their userpage; I don't think it violates WP:USERBIO. It's only a U5 if the owner has made few or no other edits, as you know. Bishonen | talk10:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen. Don't know why, but I seem be bringing all my user page questions to you. If there's a better place to ask these, then please let me know and I'll do so from here on. However, allow me just one more. Can you tak a look at User talk:2A01:E34:EE0E:ABD0:B854:9C74:3C1F:E26D. The IP seems to be useing that user talk page for a draft. I'm pretty sure that IP's do not have sandboxes, but I don't know whether they can create user subpages or drafts to work on future articles or improvements to exisitng articles. Using an IP talk for a draft seem fraught with peril since bascially anyone using the same IP can simply delete what has been posted. Any ideas on what to do in this type of situation. A little background: This IP had been posting their "drafts", etc. on the user talk pages of others and on project talk page and was advised not to do such a thing. So, maybe that's why they decided to post it on their user talk. If I remember correctly, the IP was also advised to create a user account, but said they did not want to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) To answer your questions: IP's don't have sandboxes, but they can create a subpage of their user talk (and call it 'Sandbox' if they want); and they can create draft articles. To answer your unasked question, should we expect them to know that? The answer is 'no'. Nobody but an admin can actually delete a page, and if the work is blanked by someone else, it's easy to recover it from the page history, so there's very little peril. Finally, it was incredibly WP:BITEY of User:JJMC89 to delete the work from that talk page with a edit summary of "Article drafts belong in the Draft namespace, not User talk". I hope you never do that. I've re-created the article at Draft:Tibet women's soccer and left a note for 2A01:E34:EE0E:ABD0:B854:9C74:3C1F:E26D so that they can find it. --RexxS (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look RexxS and for trying to help that IP out. As I posted above, however, that particular IP has been posting (copying-and pasting) drafts onto various user talk/project talk pages even though he was advised not to do so. The IP seems to still be at it, but maybe now that he has a "draft" page to work off of he will stop doing that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The block notice told me a different story for the expiration because of the time difference in my settings/preferences. When I looked at it, I thought there were at least 6 hours left. If I had realized it was only minutes, I wouldn't have said anything or bothered you and Coffee. Your comment, "I can't make myself care" was priceless and appropriate. Thanks for today's first laugh! -- WV ● ✉✓17:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Haha. :-) I got caught up in the time differences too, I thought it was an hour and a couple of minutes. Coffee had it right. Bishonen | talk18:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC).
Govind Kumar Singh
The Singh article probably needs some semi - it is obvious that the sock/neat effort has returned. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hooray, Sitush is back! Yeah, that's obvious all right, but there hasn't been anything since I blocked the latest sock a couple of hours ago, so I'll hold off with semi for a while. Hmmm... our friend is probably asleep right now, though. I'll try to keep an eye on the article. Bishonen | talk18:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC).
Sitush, you have been blocked for violating 3RR![31] I see RegentsPark has semi'd the article for three months. Deleting it might be still more to the purpose, but it's probably useless to try. Fine sources, aren't they? According to this "Exclusive Interview" on www.schoolofstyling.com (which now redirects to intelliname.com, a domain selling outfit offering Strategic Domain Names and Tactical Branding Solutions for Entrepreneurs, Ad Agencies, Web Developers, Venture Capitalists, Marketing Groups, and Inspired Individuals — I'm quoting), Singh "is a genius" (again I'm quoting). At least he admits it. Bishonen | talk21:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC).
I'm not really acquainted with computer lingo. I was merely responding somewhat playfully to Sitush's edit summary here, that I linked to, Liz. I wouldn't post a block notice here on my own page. Sorry it was confusing. Bishonen | talk23:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC).
I'd never heard of (which is ironic itself) the irony mark but I am intrigued that the inverted exclamation was suggested as such a mark because Spanish does in fact use both that and the inverted "?" to guide the reader into the purpose of a sentence, which I've always thought rather clever. As for what I did, well, I did it and I don't give a stuff. I am pleased that at least thus far no admin has thought fit to block me because it does suggest at least a degree of common sense in application of the brightline rule. But I'd accept the block if it happened. It is no secret that I am increasingly disenchanted here (it feels like Sisyphus or whoever it was pushing the rock up the hill) and it is probably no secret that I've got some major real life problems going on. Neither of these things gives me the right to subvert the rules, of course. I just do not care that much at the moment.
I'm an honourable bloke but not slavish, which perhaps in part explains why I'm banned from Jimbo's talk page and think so little of him. Independence of thought is, or at least was, almost a defining prerequisite for kids being accepted at Oxbridge and, believe me, it doesn't go away. I was interviewed by a panel that included Hugh Trevor-Roper and vehemently disagreed with him; Wales is nothing by comparison. And when I say I disagreed with T-R I mean I called him a fool, to his face.
Bish knows some of what is going on but not all of it because there have been developments since we last spoke. I haven't been around much and it is unlikely that I will be for the foreseeable future. My brain, such as it is, is mashed and I need to back off. - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Uncle Milty. I'm sure I blocked an earlier one, too. Checking … ah yes. There was Monica Lewinsky Clinton, created 17 February, in case you want to add it to the SPI. Sounds like it might be the first, doesn't it? That one requested unblock, with a wide-eyed "Who, me offensive?" question. Even though I hadn't provided a block template — I prefer not to, with obvious cases, because it's dignifying them too much, and also because I prefer not to have them in my contribs list. So it's sort of striking that they nevertheless knew how to request unblock. Experienced troll I presume. [Waves at User:Chedzilla. ] Bishonen | talk18:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC).
WiseWik has been battling at Komati caste and some other places for a while now. Someone issued a sanctions warning some time ago and they've just been ridiculously bold again at that article, given their knowledge of and indeed participation in recent discussions at its talk page. I'm wondering whether a short topic ban might be in order. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Let user Sitush first go through the references first they are the same references cited based on which the other part of the article are accepted. The edits are all referenced please check and if you find these aren't from the references cited please discuss and revert.
Threatening to block editors reverting edits putting biased posts aren't honorary for editors. Lets not go by Idol worship. Sometimes you might have contributed a great article sometimes not what matters in an edit is not who has contributed what but whats the contribution of the editor.
I refuse to remove the edits with out discussing this or letting Wikipedia know why they shouldnt be mentioned in the article?
(talk page stalker) Content discussions belong on the talk page of the article. Please read my warning about personal attacks, and seriously consider if you are best to revise the heading of this section to remove the word "biased". --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) and while you are at it, you might want to rethink your User page, which I think transgresses in a similar way, and should not be having a go at named individuals. As a general rule: shouting at people, and rabbiting on about how terrible they are, is not an effective way to get on with working happily here. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Bish: What is the process for dealing with strange, repetitive WP:MEAT behavior in Sikhism-related sections and article. The latest instance is here.
The editor involved is @Jujhar.pannu, not an active editor, appears occasionally for a few days with a burst of edits. @Jujhar.pannu recent appearances, somehow, are unusually well timed with @Js82 sock accounts. @Jujhar.pannu is well aware of wikipedia rules given the numerous repetitive warnings he has recently posted on my talk page.
The probable cause is this: @Jujhar.pannu alleges that "@Kigman fs", a newly opened and then blocked @Js82 sock-account, expressed "concern about the quotes being represented inaccurately", but I don't see "@Kigman fs" ever express this concern. They appeared together, between 22:59, 11 March 2016 and 01:03, 12 March 2016, as evidenced here. Both engage in edit warring together, with @Js82-sock including the snide remarks we have seen for last 6+ months.
The previous instance occurred in the Sikhism article, between 18:14, 9 January 2016 and 21:14, 9 January 2016 where @Jujhar.pannu and @Pinsi281 (another @Js82 sock and blocked) appeared together, same team-editwarring behavior. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I agree with your concerns. I've warned Jujhar.pannu about mendacity, and restored the last good version of the article from before Kigman fs appeared. Is this article under discretionary sanctions? It seems to me it should be. Anyway, if DS are not in force, then ANI will have to be used to get a topic ban, should that prove necessary. --RexxS (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll take a look, but it'll have to be tomorrow, sorry. If it's more urgent, please ask another admin. Thank you, RexxS, it'll be interesting to see what the user says to you. Certainly the article is under discretionary sanctions. I've posted a DS alert on the user, that's as much as I can manage today. (I'm running a temperature. Nothing's making sense to me, least of all Indian religions.) Bishonen | talk21:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC).
I appreciate your patience, Ms Sarah Welch. Man, that situation would be hard to follow even if it wasn't about religion, with all the socks and red herrings and what looks like deliberate vagueness and foot-shuffling on Juhar.pannu's part. I've warned him he either needs to explain himself properly, or leave the article alone from now on. Bishonen | talk17:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC).
TBAN
Ah hah! You finally coughed up the goods.[32] I'm trying to rewrite the WP:TBAN policy to be more reasonable.[33] First revert implied I was too sub-human to do so, I guess.[34] (I immediately reverted, because, LOL what??) I think my rewrite is pretty reasonable though. -- Kendrick7talk04:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I linked to WP:TBAN on Sir Joseph's page six times in four posts in February and March, here, here (twice in the one post), here (also twice), and here ("Please click on WP:TBAN and read what "topic banned" means", etc etc) before I decided I'd have to actually quote it. Didn't stop you flaunting your ignorance on the same page, or stop you giving Sir Joseph hair-raisingly bad advice: "FWIW, I've gone ahead and reverted Coffee's attempt to silence you on the WP:AE page. As far as I'm concerned, and what with the inability of other editors above to provide the policy rationale I requested, you should feel free to edit there and ignore such Stalinesque attempts to prevent it."[35] Your inability to click on links, you mean. Don't you know about links? And now that you have become aware of the policy you're rewriting it. Most impressive. I'd appreciate it if you would kindly stay away from my page, I find your jaunty pride in ignorance jarring. Stalin09:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC).
Coughed up the goods? How rude--and it's microagression towards those who have a cold. FWIW, it is abundantly clear to editors of good faith that one doesn't need to name something in order to break one's topic ban of something, but go ahead and badger on. Good luck rewriting what was already clear. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
What ho! I've seen you doling out discretionary sanctions warnings, so you might be able to help. Bosnian pyramid claims surely falls under the Pseudoscience sanctions (apart from the widely discredited pseudo-archaeology, there's guff about wanting to "break a cloud of negative energy, allowing the Earth to receive cosmic energy from the centre of the galaxy"). The article and talk page have been assaulted by various supporters of this idiocy of late and I've semi-protected the page, but autoconfirmed editors are "removing bias" too. I want to start alerting contributors to the discretionary sanctions. So, my questions...
Can you direct me to the standard DS warning template for Pseudoscience? (I keep following links hoping that I'll be directed to it, but it's as if I'm in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike)
What's the best place to ask for a DS enforcement?
I won't be able to enact any bans, blocks, or whatever myself as I've been engaged in content and talk page discussion enough to make me involved, but at least I'll have put the DS basis in place so I can ask for an enforcer if necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The alert for pseudoscience and fringe science is {{subst:alert|ps}}. I know exactly what you mean about the maze of twisty little passages! You keep meeting yourself, and the magus Zoroaster and all. I've saved my sanity by keeping links and notes re DS alerts and sanctions whenever I come across them on my page User:Bishonen/Useful warnings, the top two headings in the TOC. My notes aren't written in a way to be the best order for others, but only so I can understand them myself; you may want to copy them on to a page of your own and make them clear for you. And please ask if it's mysterious anywhere.
The notifications are self-logging, you'll see how when you try to save, and they "expire" after a year. Log all Arbitration enforcement sanctions in this central log. But as soon as you've posted the alert you're allright, as it contains links to that log and everything else. (Try not to have anything to do with community sanctions. They're harder to log. I had to ask RexxS for help last time.)
Theoretically, you ask for sanctions at WP:AE, and there's a fucking discussion and it takes the best years of your life and too few admins weigh in. Discretionary sanctions are supposed to make adminning simpler, and as long as you stay uninvolved, they do, but when you're involved, it's hell. I've usually been able to avoid editing Indian pages, controversial bios, and indeed pseudoscience, so I place the sanctions myself in clear cases. And then the users can appeal on AE, which is proper and usually not as much of a mess as when you have to request sanctions. Am I saying something between the lines? Yes: try asking me, rather than AE, for sanctions if disruption persists after users have been alerted. Have fun. Bishonen | talk14:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC).
That was probably just my tummy rumbling. How are you, Boing!? (love that juxtaposition) - wonderful to see you back and in harness again. I've made a start for you by putting the {{Ds/talk notice|ps|long}} on Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims and the {{Ds/alert|ps}} on Guy.shrimpton's talk page. That should move things along a bit. --RexxS (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks for your help. (Perhaps what I need when I'm being asked a question is an interrobang - Boing‽) And yep, I'm fine thanks - I see you're as busy as ever. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Ian.thomson already blocked the IP for 48 hours, and I can't really think of any longer-term solution, but don't theseposts look kinda familiar?
Sub in a misunderstanding of what "historical revisionism" and "New Age" are for a misunderstanding of what "myths" are and it's a dead-ringer...
(I've been accused of "canvassing" a lot recently, so I need to clarify in the same edit: in this case the suspicious IP and I were in essential agreement as to the article content; I just don't think banned long-term abusers should be allowed continue attacking people while logged out.)
Thanks. I suppose it was because it was so blatant — no real attempt to hide — that Vanjagenije only blocked them for another three days. User:Betty Logan seemed to assume 2601:243:400:ae4e:c198:4a6b:8a8f:4c13(talk·contribs·WHOIS) was also the same person, and I was little surprised not to see it on the SPI. Not that there's any point in listing IPs, as CU's won't comment on them... anyway, I see the IP has been blocked for 3 months. Bishonen | talk11:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC).
I've notified TheBIHLover of pseudoscience discretionary sanctions at User talk:TheBIHLover and I have also made this comment to them, and I just want to let you know in case you think sanctions might be needed. This is a supporter of the Bosnian pyramid claims and has a YouTube channel supporting woo-woo nonsense. Today they have started again at Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims#Heading, pushing the same nonsense they did in December. It was firmly rejected back then and wasted a lot of people's time, but they have kicked off again with exactly the same thing, pushing exactly the same unacceptable sourcepos, and refusing to accept Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. I believe such disruption of article talk pages is covered by sanctions, but as I said above I will not be able to impose any myself. Anyway, sanctions notification given and I'll let you know if the disruption continues. Thanks again for your offer of help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking, Boing! and RexxS, and I'll try to help provided Boing uploads a YouTube video in which he shows measurements of the ion-flux field around a human anus using his electro-capacitative trombone which he invented hemself. Without that, you can forget it. Bishonen | talk16:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC).
Reading... I've alerted Crovata to the discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe science. RexxS, I see you mention recruting meatpuppets for spamming the article via Facebook.[36]. Do you have links to anything like that? Bishonen | talk17:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC).
It's not unknown to topic ban an SPA for persistent disruption of an article talkpage, even if they aren't editing the article itself. I've done it, but only in extreme situations, where somebody was virtually rendering the talkpage unusable for its purpose (=improving the article). This doesn't look that extreme to me. Unless you can give me some diffs showing that their comments now are actually re-runs of stuff that they've already said, and never got any traction for? That would be pretty disruptive. Anyway, I've asked TheBIHLover a couple of questions. Bishonen | talk17:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC).
He has definitely been trying again to get some of the same sources included in the article that he had rejected in December. I'll see if I can find some difs later - I might not have time until tomorrow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, looking over the talk page again, I don't think it's a case where specific diffs are going to do it - you really need to read the whole thing from top to bottom to see a major case of IDHT tendentiousness. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I just this moment realized I hadn't saved my post to his page. I had it in a text editor, fortunately; posted now. Top to bottom? Man, that sucks. I'll look back in the history, anyway. Bishonen | talk19:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC).
As it hapens, I've just archived very old stuff and there was a big gap between it and our friend's arrival, so at least there isn't anything relevant before what's currently on the page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clearer. My initial comment was a pointed explanation of the sort of reasons why the page would be semi-protected, and the "Facebook, etc," was an example - aimed as a "shot-across-the-bows", if you like. In this specific case, TheBiHLover operates a YouTube channel, https://www.youtube.com/user/TheBIHLover , which is the focal point of his offsite activity - and also the source for most of the videos he keeps insisting prove his claims. He seems to mainly record the videos and do the interviews at the site himself. If you search through the article talk page for "--82.2.20.63" you'll see the comments of someone complaining about the offsite behaviour of TBiHL and his supporters. Although I'm fairly sure that it's happening, there's no concrete evidence that he's been recruiting. Otherwise he'd have been at ANI a long time ago. My problem is not with his offsite activities, but his behaviour on the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've read the December thread top to bottom. I'll warn him to stop violating WP:REHASH. Still, you know, you guys aren't obliged to keep replying to him. Why don't you just collapse the repetitious threads with a header referring to the December consensus? Bishonen | talk20:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC).
I hope you're not looking at me. It's much better I don't touch that talkpage. Anyway, I think it would be perfectly OK for you to do it, in your quality as the editor who has already amply responded to all his points and explained sourcing policy to him (in December). Bishonen | talk20:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC).
Nah, I just thought it might be better not to be me, but you might be right. I'll think about it tomorrow - there's important rugby to watch now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Wow, just read this section of the talk page and I'm amazed of all these desperate claims. I can't understand who them are. As you maybe can see, I'm right now alone, discussing the issue about the Bosnian pyramid article. I'm not doing any vandalism whatsoever. I have never asked publicly, on my pages, to *attack* the Bosnian pyramid articles. The claims that I'm recruiting people is also absurd. TheBIHLover (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion is now locked by the administrators, without any answers for the articles that has been places as references without *academic reviews.* So they can place articles that are not supporting the Bosnian pyramids, but not those that support them? I have give five different articles, from five different news-stations. Can someone give me a clear answer for why you wont use them? TheBIHLover (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Copy and paste it here, so I can read it again. I have been discussing with five different persons today, it is not always easy to hold the track on everything. TheBIHLover (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Months? I told about the Turkish article today. I doubt that there is any good explanations for why Wikipedia is using that Turkish article and not the articles I have given that are Croatian and Bosnian. TheBIHLover (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Sources are evaluated in relation to the content they’re being used to support. Here it’s about the ‘name-dropping’ of Zahi Hawass; as part of the publicity surrounding the site, not a topic of academic discourse, I guess it’s the sort of thing any reasonably reputable media source can be considered reliable in reporting. This piece is not being cited on the quality of the survey itself, or for any of the main archæological or geological questions.—Odysseus147923:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I can't see any reason to not use the links I gave the administrators. I can send them once again, it's no problem for me to do that. TheBIHLover (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
You might have included a new source in your latest list, but the *reason* your sources are not acceptable is still the same as it has been ever since you started pushing the pyramid nonsense back in December. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. Perhaps he didn't understand my warning. Or else he thinks he might as well incur the ban, as stop voluntarily; I guess the effect is the same from his point of view. Topic banned for three months. Bishonen | talk12:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC).
She means that you are not allowed to discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia for three months. If you do so you can be physically stopped by having your account blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather not. A hard block doesn't mean the user can never again create an account. It simply means the IP is blocked for about 24 hours; then the person can create a new account from the same IP. They already can, in other words; they just weren't able to do it immediately after the block. Do you think 24 hours off is too much for people who troll Wikipedia by creating offensive usernames? I don't. If you don't support that particular user, I'm not sure I understand why you speak for them. Bishonen | talk16:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC).
Restore the Original article of "Dreams Beyond Grades"
Dear Bishonen,
As i got though many news articles about this Novel i made the page on wikipedia with all proper sources. And the novel itself is written by a eminent personality of India so i made this article. And the sad part is some people out here trying to defame the author so keep trying their best to defame his and his good creations.
Unfortunately i saw the deletion request from you. Please see the source and try to restore it. Its a humble request from a wiki contributor from India. So that i will be grateful to you.
The article Dreams Beyond Grades has not been deleted. I proposed it for deletion, but my proposal has already been removed by User:Fashiongrade2016 (a friend of yours, perhaps?), and deletion of the article is instead being discussed here. You can join in the discussion and make a statement. Note that if you expect to be taken seriously, you should state there what your connection is to the "eminent personality of India" Sujit Meher. I presume there is some reason that promotion of him and his book is your only interest on Wikipedia?
The reason I suggested the article for deletion is that the book is not notable per Wikipedia's notability policy for books. (Click on that link and read.) The trouble with the sources is that they're highly promotional. And the trouble with the way you wrote the article is that you lifted a lot of copyrighted text straight from the sources, which you're not allowed to do. See Wikipedia:Copyright. That text has been removed as a copyright violation, and that's the reason the article is so short now. Don't put the old text back, please. Bishonen | talk16:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC).
Yeah. The combination of the name and the edits did it for me — I wouldn't have done it for the name alone. I've seen you around warning several dubious usernames, KGirlTrucker87. Good work. Bishonen | talk19:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC).
Mutual Live Page Deletion
Need help understanding why my recent Mutual Live page was deleted? Before it told me I did not have enough content, so I created an entire page with references, full paragraphs, photos, etc. Please Help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutuallive (talk • contribs) 22:59, 24 March 2016
Thanks, guys. Hi, User:Mutuallive. As you wrote when you contested the first deletion, it's an "up and coming rock band". It's not notable yet. Please see the notability criteria for bands. Your article is well-written, and when the band fulfills at least one of the listed criteria, such as for instance "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" or "has released two or more albums on a major record label", you can create it again.
Yes, Boing!, the name is a problem. I thought of blocking and asking the user to create a policy-compliant name, but I was kind of waiting for them to respond to the WP:COI notice on their page first. What about it, Mutuallive? You removed the conflict of interest template on the article, and you've ignored questions about conflict of interest on your page. You may not realize that the WP:COI guideline is taken seriously here. When you next create the page, please create a username that complies with the username policy (usernames must represent an individual, not a collective), and also disclose your coi per the instructions. (It's kind of hard to believe that you're not in fact connected to the band.) I'll copy some of this reply to User talk:Mutuallive. Bishonen | talk10:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for the responses guys, it has helped me out a ton. I am new to the Wikipedia platform and I did remove the WP:COI notice on the source editing page because I did not know why it was there. I did not mean to disrespect Wikipedia in any way shape or form. I will delete my current account 'Mutuallive' and in the future abide by the username policy. Again, I apologize for any inconvenience I put forth on the Wiki community and I will by sure to abide by all guidelines in the future. Thanks!
Dear Bish, many wishes of Good Easter, and thanks for your clever words! About the pastiere, please help yourself: our family's women (and also a couple of guys ;-)) have baked them on Tuesday for Easter's breakfast! Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The pastiere look delicious! Your family baked all that, Alex? What a wonderful family you have. I may eat it all before your Easter breakfast comes round. Bishonen | talk10:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
Yes, Bish, it is a family tradition, which takes place at our country house at Easter, while each Christmas we prepare at home our tortellini (between 2,000 and 2,500). My tasks usually are logistical: last Easter I had to buy 50 eggs at the nearby farms... ;-) Alex2006 (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
BlueSalix
I was just in the middle of filling out an AE complaint against BlueSalix and just say you blocked them. Any suggests as to what to do? EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 23:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I blocked BS for 60 hours for aggravated edit warring. Of course the discretionary sanctions alerts they have received (for American politics and BLP) still stand. I'm not sure if a topic ban from Ted Cruz is necessary — the fact is, I haven't followed the matter closely enough to say. Now I have 60 hours to read up, then I'll see. An AE report might be good, if you think you have enough basis for one, but I wouldn't post one while they're blocked if I were you. It's just inconvenient if they can't respond in the normal way. So if you'll be advised by me, you have 60 hours too. (Just going to bed here.) Bishonen | talk00:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC).
Some users again trying to defame Sujit Meher article
Dear Bishonen,
Its really sad to see people keep trying to defame public figure articles again and again. Some users are keep trying to defame Sujit Meher article and requesting for deletion as a self promoted article. Please kindly go though the link, he has been listed among those top 10 alumni of NIFT itself, and even it published in NIFT official website too. How can it be a self promoted article, where its alma mater itself is saying he is in the list of those few respectable alumni of NIFT. So no need of any deletion request or debate on this particular article. [1] Please i request you kindly protect such article, where people keep trying to defame such public figure articles. Even you can see all national media links and sources are prominently given.
Novelbuzz, I don't doubt it's true Meher is an alumnus of NIFT. (Sorry to hear you say there are only a few respectable alumni, but then I don't know the institute.) Not everything that's true should be in the lead, and putting the institute into the lead gives it undue weight. I know what it is that's "really sad" here. Most of the SPAs or socks promoting Sujit Meher and his so-called "bestseller" have been blocked. You can be too if you keep trying to canvass users to come and agree with you, and keep baselessly accusing people (me and Voceditenore at the moment, I presume?) of trying to "defame" Meher.[37][38][][39][40] Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Since this is a warning to you, I'll copy it to your own page to make sure you see it. Please sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end (~~~~). Bishonen | talk11:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC).
Based on what's transpiring here, is revoking talk page access appropriate at this point or is that usually reserved for long-term blocks? -- WV ● ✉✓19:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
If he continues to use his page for attacks during the block, I will remove TPA, WV. But I hope you'll rise above, especially as you've commented rather strongly on him.[41] Always wiser not to do that. Bishonen | talk19:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC).
Maybe wiser in most cases, but I don't believe so in this case. This user has a long history of unwanted, disruptive behavior and has never really shown themselves to be productive nor a net positive. After so much garbage under the bridge, there's no indication they ever will be. Sorry, but that's my uncensored, honest opinion. -- WV ● ✉✓19:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Aw rats
Hi B. I just saw that the Laurel & Hardy dancing.gif has been deleted at commons :-( I am gonna miss them a lot. Enjoy the rest of your weekend in spite of this. MarnetteD|Talk21:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
KGirlTrucker87 wants to be your friend! Friends promote WikiLove and make people happy. This user wants to be your friend because they like you. You can contact me at [[User talk:{{subst:currentuser}}|my talk page]]. Oh, and hopefully you will be my friend too!
Become someones friend! Add {{subst:Friend}} to their talk page.
Bishonen,
In line with other actions that admins, and you specifically have taken, I would like to know if you can rescind my TBAN. I think the article is stable now that the RFC and everything else settled and I would like to be able to edit should it come up and more importantly, I would like the ban removed from my log. I have already had it used against me when involved in editing other areas. Regardless, I think a jump from one week to six months is a long time and I think time served is more than enough.
Thank you. Sir Joseph(talk)14:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm dubious about removing the ban early, considering the many good reasons it was placed (IMO). At least, I'm not inclined to do it on my own. I suggest you take it to WP:AE for more admin eyes. (Good faith advice: don't mention Soviet Russia and how your ban was extended because you "dared to appeal". That stuff doesn't make a good impression on most people.)
The ban isn't logged in your block log (since it's a ban, not a block). It's logged here only. It's not going to be removed — the log is meant to be complete — but that log is not widely read, most people don't even know it exists. When the ban is over, whether by expiring or by being rescinded, I think it'll soon be forgotten. Bishonen | talk15:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC).
Good sir, can you help me? You're well known for a fair and evenhanded dispensation of justice. I am having trouble with another editor on the Generation X article. Could you review the situation and perhaps provide some direction to us? I would greatly appreciate any of your help you might be willing to provide. Thank you. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, as looks can be deceiving, his actions didn't actually solve anything, but I have learned well now that I shouldn't bug the (understandably) busy and consumed admins when I have problems and I have acted boldly in response. I will continue to, and I will not bother you again. Thank you for your review. Buddy23Lee (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I see Joseph was worried at AN3. But the edit that alarmed him was a few minutes before I placed the rangeblock. I'm very pleased that I've finally grasped the way to block an IPv6 range, after having had it explained to me ten or fifteen times (hello, User:RexxS, how're you doing?). Please let me know if there are more problems, but the rangeblock should hold them unless they sally out and look for an open proxy. Nothing except semi helps against that. Bishonen | talk19:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC).
I have removed the words "guilty of" and replaced them with something less . . ...legal and we'll see if that settles them (him?) down. Carptrash (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear clever stalker admins
A new user I blocked for username vio, User:Yourlifeyourchoice, has requested unblock and a new name, JustLiz, which is both proper and available. I'd unblock them myself, except that I feel the admin that does ought to be able to help with the username change (rather than throw a newbie out in our bureaucratic jungle to fend for themselves). The trouble is I don't understand how to take care of the change. (I've looked, but that didn't help.) Anybody? Preferably with permission to do global renames. Bishonen | talk16:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC).
Thanks, Ed. If it takes a while before somebody responds to them, I'll unblock myself and refer them to WP:CHU/S. Still... you realize they're completely new. CHU/S looks "simple" to you and me... anyway, I've finally pulled my socks up and requested the global rename permission, so I'll be able to take care of these things myself.[42] My request will have to spend two weeks in the bowels of the monster, though, so I'm still hoping somebody will take care of "Liz". Bishonen | talk16:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC).
You're brilliant, Boing. I think you jumped in and helped the last time I had a problem like this, too, didn't you? What a good guy you are. Bishonen | talk18:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC).
@Bish: An IP 59.89.103.139, possibly @Js82 or someone @Js82-like, is busy repeatedlyvandalizing/adding offensive messages to my user talk page, along with the talk page of admin @Boing! said Zebedee here. Thanks to @Oshwah who has reverted the vandalism and personal attacks on both pages. Would appreciate a 6 month protection of my user page and user talk page this time, since several 1 month protections haven't helped. I love the new images and animations on your page @Bish, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Done. Yes the naughty little Darwinbish biting her brother Darwinfish is good (or bad), isn't she? Courtesy of the animation skills of User:Tex, friend to all bishes and fishes. Bishonen | talk17:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC).
Ha! I can see you have e-mail notifications for when you're mentioned, don't you, Tex! Busted! I'll mention you more from now on! Say, did you notice the request higher up on the page from MarnetteD? She would like the twins to be wearing little bowler hats in the animation. (In reference to the Laurel and Hardy animation I had previously.) What do you say, are you up for it? Bishonen | talk15:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
Eesh. I'll have to see what I can do. It's been many years since I created that and I no longer have the original. I also no longer have the time and patience that I had back then! Maybe some day. Tex (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Apparently Category:Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor was briefly recreated in 2012. I've deleted and salted both of them, though it remains easy to create substantially synonymous but slightly different-sounding cats — "Men married to ET", "Spouses of ET" — sigh. We do what we can. Bishonen | talk21:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
As you have speedily deleted the category page, would you mind also emptying the category and closing the CfD discussion on it? – FayenaticLondon22:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I've already done writing all the sockpuppets of Profile101 by 17 IP users. Since he is blocked, i think is time to receive him a site ban. He's been disrupting, socking with three months. He was been disruptive since when he was created a account, and he has been vandalizing in the whole global Wikimedia. He has attached 3 language Wikipedia and ZH-wikipedia had been blocked. 07:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)121.7.127.70 (talk). We should start receiving site ban in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents right now.
Hi, Profile101. Would you like to be famous in an ANI report? See WP:DENY. You'll never be unblocked, so you don't need a formal site ban. Bishonen | talk08:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC).
Wasn't it agreed at WP:AE a few months ago that individual admins could install 500/30 restrictions on any I/P article that was experiencing serious trouble from multiple new editors? Where, pray tell, would that decision be logged? I can't find it anywhere, and I stopped after 3 separate pages where it could logically have been logged. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Complicated world we live in! Conflicts in IP and PI areas. I meant IP (India/Pakistan), not PI (Palestine/Israel). I think it was a decision reached at WP:AE. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The one in Archive183 is my closure of a request opened by User:SpacemanSpiff, trying to get agreement among at least a few admins of how these sanctions ought to be applied. (It is clear that Arbcom lets individual admins enact these like any other DS). For an example of how some people have been logging 500/30 sanctions in WP:DSLOG, see this entry: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015#Page level sanctions. There are already some mentions of the 500/30 restriction in WP:DSLOG/2016. Search for '500.' By the way, notice that the page protection menu now includes 'Extended confirmed users'. This means that 500/30 can be automatically enforced by Mediawiki, on any page where policy allows it to be applied. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Thanks for that, Ed. It's very encouraging that the software has been updated to help automatically implement these sort of restrictions. I'm particularly impressed by the editnotice (e.g. at Template:Editnotices/Page/Nair), so kudos to MusikAnimal for creating that template. I'm guessing this will be a god-send to 'Shonen and the rest of the admins trying to keep Wikipedia honest. It might even make life tolerable for Sitush again. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Update: I just tried to edit Nair from one of my alternative accounts, User:Famously Sharp, which has only 220 edits. Unlike semi-protection, where I can see beforehand that I can only "View source", it allows me to try to save the edit, then tells me that it's disallowed in the way that an edit-filter would operate. That's ok, but might be a tiny bit bitey for a good-faith auto-confirmed editor who has less than 500/30. --RexxS (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
It has already helped at articles such as Vanniyar, although even I can't edit that at the moment because the permissions thing hasn't percolated through to my account yet. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all, I have been following this with interest. I was quite deeply involved in Spaceman Spiff's AE request for 500/30 restrictions at caste articles, but I had some trouble parsing the way it was eventually decided and how it works, filters and all. The above discussion is very helpful. :-) There's just one thing that's unclear, and that I don't think Floquenbeam has been fully informed about: he asked about India/Pakistan articles in general, but the AE discussion and decision was exclusively about caste articles. I don't believe admins are entitled to place non-caste India/Pakistan articles under a 500/30 restriction. For instance, all the highly controversial articles about conflict between India and Pakistan don't fall under these restrictions. Am I right, EdJohnston? Bishonen | talk14:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC).
(a) Admins can impose DS, (b) 500/30 is a DS. (c) Ergo, it is allowed for use in any area for which DS are authorized. I don't see any limitation to Caste articles. In the Archive183 thread, User:SpacemanSpiff provided a clear rationale that was specific to Caste. Nothing wrong with applying it to other ARBIPA topics, but any expansion ought to be cautious. It may be advisable to open an AE thread for any broadening beyond caste. The 500/30 appears to work for Gamergate, and the caste editing problem is similar to Gamergate. For the India-Pakistan wars, it is not so obvious it is an apt solution. We have entrenched opponents who have (usually) been on Wikipedia for a while rather than low-edit-count enthusiasts who want to Fix Wikipedia Right Now. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
It's the little Zad! [Bishzilla stuffs the little user in her pocket and sets Darwinbish to guard the catflap.] No more escapes! bishzillaROARR!!16:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC).
User:Zad68 gets credit as the first AE closer to boldly apply a 500/30 restriction, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173#TheRedPenOfDoom, third filing in May 2015. Some of us were just waiting for Arbcom to slap this down, but they didn't. In fact, they applied their own 500/30 to all of WP:ARBPIA, a thing not widely expected by Arbcom prognosticators. (Arbcom has even been skittish about 1RR restrictions in the past). So Zad68 must have decided that the inherent authority of admins per WP:AC/DS was enough to apply this restriction. So far there's no evidence that 500/30 is 'authorized by Arbcom for some cases but not others'. But if they want to, they can spell that out. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I apparently said the right thing in the right place at the right time, in the right context. Because this idea hasn't just been tolerated, it's now got SWAG. Zad6818:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, work and life have caught up and Wikipedia is lowest on the totem pole in terms of my time commitment now. Bish, I had the same interpretation as EdJohnston on this, but the reason I wanted to take this up to AE was so that we could avoid the "this admin doesn't like my caste so s/he's made my caste article not editable" discussions every single time at our very own versions of Broadway, Hollywood, and Bollywood. As for the India-Pakistan dispute articles or even the Tamil articles, I'm not sure this would help at this point, those have a lesser count of low edit SPAs, drive-by editors can easily be handled, but it's the well entrenched folks that require attention (e.g. at least a couple of editors with over five year editing histories were blocked in the past six odd months, for sockpuppetry and stuff in the I-P dispute space, and just look at Tamils for an example of how a featured article became a cesspool of bovine excrement.) That said, I think the Zad sanction can be imposed on lower profile India-Pakistan dispute articles, most of the POV efforts tend to be concentrated on the high-profile articles while the low profile ones attract the socks and drive-bys. —SpacemanSpiff17:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, they're too wide. But 2602:30a:2c95:6b0::/64 is surely only one individual. (Same person as 166.xx but at home, perhaps.) Since two weeks didn't impress them, I've made it three months. (Incidentally I see in the log that they'd had a one-month block, by Elockid, just before my two weeks. Hmmm. If it really helps, I'll make it a year next time.) Bishonen | talk20:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC).
Objection to the deletion of the redirect of "2014 Ukrainian coup"
Western media is biased since they typically would not favor another geopolitical rival such as Russia. Moreover, it can be seen as a coup as there were many violent individuals who occupied government buildings and attacked the Berkut. It was a coup since it was the threat of violence that caused Viktor Yanukovych to flee. It is hard for me not to see it as a "coup". LinkinPark (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The redirect had previously been deleted per a deletion discussion, here. That's a reason to speedy the recreation of it, see WP:G4. If you want to dispute the decision made in 2014, you can take it to Deletion review. Bishonen | talk09:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC).
Anand reddy godwa (talk·contribs) and आनंद कुशवाहा (talk·contribs). Pretty much the same edits today to the same article, ie Reddy. Not sure if it is socking or meating but experience tells me it is one or the other because this has come out of nowhere. If I post the sanctions thing I am likely to be accused of biting by the do-gooders. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
You just granted a self-imposed block to Winterysteppe. He/she made about 1000 edits to talk pages in the last day or so using OneClickArchiver, bungling archive formats, archiving active discussions/RfCs, archiving all discussions on many pages, and creating other similar issues. When told about the problems, he/she tersely admitted being hasty, then blew off requests to actually fix anything and instead requested a self-block. I was in the process of opening a section at ANI just now, but that might be a bit intense for someone who tried to help, messed up, and now doesn't want to clean up. Also, being temporarily blocked limits the possible directions the discussion could go. The whole point is that it's not ok to make a mess and to request a block while leaving the mess for others to fix. I have diffs and whatnot for ANI, but maybe an admin making crystal clear "this is NOT ok" would be sufficient... — Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, the user is obviously under a lot of stress. You do know Wikipedia is not compulsory? No matter what he did (and it wasn't vandalism), he's got a right to take time off and decompress. Everybody has that right. Plus he's doing exams. And I want to emphasize that nobody else should feel obliged to clean up after him, either. Probably somebody who wants to will come along; that's usually what happens, and that's the advantage of the place being so big. In any case, Wikipedia messes don't trump real life problems. He seems very aware that he messed up, no need to crush him with an ANI IMO, though that of course is up to you. I for my part think you have scolded him adequately already. Bishonen | talk20:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC).
Rhododendrites Wintersteppe here. I get daily emails of tags and mentions. You do realize that I have messed up. I took this wiki block enforcement just so I can 100% focus on college graduation. This is the last time I'm actually hitting the "edit" button until June. I need some time to study and relax my head. And yes I messed up but doesn't mean you can harass me up to the point of filing ANI. Haw you seen my talk page?? I already got enough flak to know I messed up. How many times do you need to swing the hammer so you are satisfied? Until I get banned?
But seriously, I should tell you that you can easily use Twinkle to restore edits back to a state, like going back to an edit that included a RFC. That, yes that, can be used in cases of my disruptive editing. Yes believe it or not, disruptive editing can be reverted using twinkle simply by a few mouse clicks. I'm sure you have done that before. Oh right, you have done it here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. You already did the fixation when you asked me to conduct a fix, which I didnt know you wanted when you wrote on my talk page. Next time, be specific. Im not gonna mass revert my stuff in hopes of blindly revert 1 thing.
Now to address the issue of disruptive archiving. Yes it's 100% my fault. I have no excuses for it. Its extremely difficult to determine when it does need to archive but the dusty ones are in need of archiving. Also, yes I was aware of bots on some of them but I still did them. They seemed stale and tried to be WP:BOLD but I was reckless at the same time. And you and several others have told me. Instead of going revert and discuss, you went straight to annoy. Im not gonna archive. Its probably best I don't.
I'm willing to fix it, but in June!! That is TWO MONTHS FROM NOW. I am willing to be a better Wikipedian, although at a smaller rate. I love knowledge although Wikipedia got addicting. That was my record. ¼ of my total edits in one day. Ggez. Im willing to stay but dont bite the new comers. You, as a wikipedia since 2007, know that. Don't bite others. Get it through your head.
Now quite harassing me through pinging me. I'm Changing settings to weekly. Oh and for the record, I'm a 22-year old guy. 98.221.52.171 (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@Winterysteppe - You made mistakes, you refused to clean up the mess, and now others have to. That's the long and short of it. Telling me how to fix your mess with Twinkle is not helpful, and nobody is "harassing" you. If someone edits disruptively on a large scale and refuses to do anything to fix it, going to other venues is just the next step. I, along with multiple other people, tried to resolve it on your talk page first and nobody has taken it out of the usertalk space. That said, it was a mistake for me to mention ANI at all, as people do understandably tend to take it as a threat. I will not be taking it to ANI and am content to drop the stick. Best of luck on your exams.
@Bishonen - Well, I don't agree that the spirit of WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is an applicable defense when it comes to repairing problems one creates rather than creating work for others, but your response is largely fair. I will accept, especially given the most recent response here, that I've said enough at this point and leave it at that. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 05:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Expertise welcomed
Just come across a new article on Michel Issa that seems quite promotional - I was wondering if he is notable as the sources are in Swedish mostly? Any input welcomed! Blythwood (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Groan, what a lot of sucky sources. The article would look a lot better without the references to Mynewsdesk — oh, look, we have an article — which is a PR platform, or Chef.se (which offers "Native advertising" — I learned a new term there — on this page). Shortcut.se is a similar outfit, entreprenor24.se is user-generated, and worldaidactive.com is Issa's own organisation.
But there are a few reasonable sources. "Goda nyheter" is better than it sounds, being part of Aftonbladet. Folkbladet is fine, as is of course Sveriges radio. TV4.se would be good if only the subject was actually mentioned at the link — he's not. Mittuniversitetet, here, is a real university, so getting an award from them counts for something. Several of the sources talk about this award. Altogether, I think he's reasonably notable.
It could use cleanup, certainly. The "Multientrepreneur" thing is only sourced to Mynewsdesk and chef.se, and the eight companies only to Issa's own homepage. And as for the claim that his book (co-written with somebody), 103 pages, "will be translated into English in 2018", Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nor would I call it a "notable work", as the infobox does. Bishonen | talk22:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC).
3RR is a bright line, but, also, there's a reason we have admins and not adminbots — I'm actually supposed to use my judgment. Thanks for taking care of the article. Bishonen | talk17:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC).
Protecting? [Sticks straws in hair.] I deleted it. The top version has been cleaned up by experienced editors (over and over), but there's so much copyright violation in the history of it that I don't see any other way of fixing it — I'm not up for picking through all those crappy versions by hand. Probably against several policies, the end of a beautiful adminship. Never mind. [Strews ashes on head.] Bishonen | talk21:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC).
Hi! Bishonmen, can you recover the article " Alice Lai Nga Yu" because we need to submit the assignment. we have not a backup
Hi, User:Khchan425. I don't quite understand why you're the one asking me, since you're a new account, which has never edited the article, or anything else. Are you the same person as Chow chun wai? Anyway. I'd recommend you to always keep a backup of anything you submit to Wikipedia, as it's liable to be deleted if it's full of copyright violations and other problems. This one was mainly made up of bits cut from copyrighted internet pages and slightly altered. I don't know anything about your school — perhaps such work is acceptable to your teacher. Technically, it's no problem for me to restore the article, but the problem is I'd be restoring the copyright violations in the history, and they're not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. I'll tell you what I'll do, though: I can put the top version — the last version — which has been cleaned up by experienced editors, in Chow chun wai's "userspace". That means that you'll find it here. Most of the actual student work is gone, I'm afraid. But I hope it was a learning experience anyway. Please ask your teacher to contact me if he/she has any questions or comments. Bishonen | talk18:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC).
Harassment
Hi Bish can you please help? I'm being harassed again by Cassianto and Dr Blofeld who are accusing me of things I did not do. See here [47] and look at the post I removed before that from blofeld. They have been told in the past to stay off my talk page. Please ask them to leave me alone. Cadencool19:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Caden, I have protected the article for four days and also asked Cassianto to not post on your page. (You should avoid his page too, please.) Bishonen | talk19:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC).
Thanks Bish and dont worry I have avoided his page for a long time. I'm frustrated that he and Blo showed up out of nowhere today on my page to stir up more trouble. This has been going on for years and I'm sick of them never leaving me alone. Cadencool19:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
... is locked for creation. If you unlocked it, one could set a redirect to the more meaningful customer experience. Thanks in advance... -- Kku 09:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, @Kku: I see I deleted it in 2007 as being a "corporate bs soufflé". The impatience of youth… perhaps I shouldn't have, because Google thinks it's sort of a thing. I didn't protect it, though. First MZMcBride did, but he's no longer an admin. And then Jarry1250 did, but that was part of some large-scale unprotecting-reprotection thing he did, I don't think he considered this article in particular, much. So, OK, it falls to me. I've unprotected, do what you will. Bishonen | talk10:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC).
Request
There is an important discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention about possibly finding a way to salvage Single-purpose editors and transforming them into positive WP collaborators in the general mainspace. I'm sure you run in to many of them as you wander around your domain. I'm also sure that every now and then one of the SPA editors rises above the crowd and seems worthy of more of your time and effort. Your personal insight and experience would be appreciated. WP:WER has become a relative ghost town (and I may be one of the few ghosts left in town) and User:Robert's idea may be just the boost the Project needs to revitalize. It's an opportunity for the Project to actually do something beyond handing out awards. I think Dennis Brown would like it. Buster Seven Talk14:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi B, might you please consider semi protecting Rocky Rajesh and sanctioning Rcrox to stimulate discussion? He has continuously edited while logged out to restore disputed content like here. I can't fathom why this guy is absolutely reluctant to discuss, but his repeated attempts to force in unsourced, confusing and potentially trivial content is disruptive. I'm about ready to sanction him myself. Thanks and sorry to bug you. :/ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, Rcrox hasn't edited Rocky Rajesh (logged in) for months now, so I don't think I've got cause to sanction him atm. Indeed nobody other than you has edited it for weeks, so even placing a semi looks dodgy. I'll try to keep an eye out, please let me know if I miss further unsourced additions. Bishonen | talk08:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC).
Editing while logged out to perpetuate a silent edit war and to evade scrutiny, which he has done numerous times, is still disruptive. That said, his irritating radio silence is starting to make *me* do idiotic things, so I'm dropping the stick and removing the article from my watchlist.Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Have you? I'm not absent. I was just typing a response to ask for a link to the mentioned Google cache version, as I don't understand exactly what that is. Bishonen | talk11:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC).
If you do a google search on a recently deleted article, you'll see a little pull-down-menu triangle next to the search result; if you select "cached" from that, it shows what the page looked like last time Google scanned it. (example from a page I deleted earlier today.) It's intended for websites with intermittent service, so you can view the content from Google's server rather than the original. Next time Google's bot reaches the page, the cache will change to also be blank. ‑ Iridescent11:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Here's is the official decision: No consensus to overturn the G4 speedy deletion of the redirect to 2014 Ukrainian revolution. But if somebody does want to have the discussion about whether this redirect should (now) exist, they can recreate it and nominate it for RfD. – Sandstein 21:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
" WP:G4 and relist for discussion. I carefully chose vacate instead of overturn because the G4 wasn't unreasonable. But, looking into this further, I can find a bunch of sources which use the term Ukrainian Coup, or variations on that. New York Times, Global Research, BBC, MLToday, Japan Times. None of these are wonderful sources, and I'm not sure that even those five together would be enough to survive XfD scrutiny, but I'm quite convinced they're enough to get past the WP:CSD bar. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)"
Yes, LinkinPark, what both Roy Smith and Sandstein say is vacate and relist. Is that what you intend: recreating it and starting a new RfD? If it is, I'm fine with removing the protection. If you just want to recreate the redirect, I'm less sure, and in that case you'd better ask RS or Sandstein. Bishonen | talk10:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for taking care of Hrithik Vardhan(Entrepreneur). Not salted, though. Does it matter? Cats like these will find a way to circumvent creation protected titles by DAB additions and subtle changes in spelling. I've been following cross-wiki a skilled master in this respect for a couple of years, the notorious José Rafael Cordero Sánchez. On enwiki he has only graced us with 38 creations under 19 different titles, known cases, that is. Recently adding strings to local title blacklists have had good effect. Just a thought, especially if Vardhan should return again. All the best, Sam SailorTalk!15:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed some minutes before your post that I hadn't actually salted (apparently I thought saying I'd salted was performative, I do that a lot. :-(), and did it. Yes, I know it's not much use, with that determined cat, but it does no harm either. Bishonen | talk15:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC).
Playing round the edges
What edit in your view demonstrates "playing round the edges"? In my statement I respectfully requested that my edits be viewed in good faith in the context of involvement with environmental topics. Sincerely I had no intention of boundary testing. Sincerely I believe there is topic area of the environment which is independent of American conservative politics. Hugh (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Hugh. I think it would make more sense for you to post questions to me and GWH at the AE, for more eyes. (Unless you've already been told your text at AE is getting too long, but I haven't seen anything like that.) But I will give examples here: this edit to Institute for Energy Research, and these [49][50][51][52] to American Petroleum Institute, all of which you defend by saying these institutions are "explicitly" non-political and non-partisan. As far as I can see, by "explicitly", you mean they say they are. Non-political and non-partisan seem unlikely on the face of it in both cases, as energy research is a highly political topic. Also in view of the "Funding" section of Institute for Energy Research. and the "Public relations, advocacy, and lobbying" section of American Petroleum Institute. And as Dennis said at AE, your edits aren't focused on the core of the article, but instead on the political ramifications of the topic. That's the kind of thing I mean by playing round the edges of your topic ban. Bishonen | talk18:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC).
Thank you for your reply here. "energy research is a highly political...the political ramifications" Everything is political, broadly construed. A reminder, the ban is not from political topics, it is from conservative American politics. Sincerely, I did not come to Institute for Energy Research and American Petroleum Institute seeking to test a topic ban, my intention was honestly to address a paraphrase of a source on climate change denial so inaccurate as to constitute original research and a neutrality violations in our project. I did so in good faith, as part of a clearly demonstrated months-long productive re-focus of my volunteer activity on our environment. I did so at all times civilly and without disruption. Behavior justifying expanded sanctions is absent. Considering the Institute for Energy Research and the American Petroleum Institute as in-scope of conservative American politics is a reach. Thank you for your kind reconsideration of this filing. Hugh (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Editor of the Week : nominations needed!
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
Good morning Mrs Bishonen and what a wonderful morning it is. I have just returned from the US of A (where I am advising nice Mr Trump on his election campaign - such a charming man - do you know him?) to join HM in her birthday celebrations - isn't she marvelous for her age....just like you, and I log in to see that Wikipedia is sending people to the moon. Naturally, until they develop first class compartments, it would be a trip too far for me, but I can think of many Wikipedians who I would very much like to send - nice Mr Wales being the most deserving, and then some of our more diligent Admins. I think I shall compile a list. Just think one could load a rocket with them and then blast the lot of them off into outer space. It's far too good an opportunity to pass over. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear lady, how serendipitous for you to turn up just below Buster7's call for nominations for editor of the week! In your case editor of the century might be more appropriate, but even so. Shall I nominate you? What do you think, Buster? I have a kind of awkward feeling that on the many many occasions people have tried to nominate our largest editor, you have had some kind of odd objection, not sure of what nature. But surely that wouldn't apply to the Lady? Try to time the award for when she has finished compiling her useful Moonbase alpha list. Bishonen | talk20:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC).
As usual, you both have broken many of the interminable rules governing nominations for Editor of the Week. Rule #1: Keep it a secret. Now that you have "let the cat out of the bag" (as we say in the vernacular), the potential for surprise is limited. Rule #2: Nominate someone who is of little renown. The dear lady's domain encompasses all of Wikipedia-land (and now includes the moon). Her reputation is known far and wide.
My personal metamorphosis is at stake. Should I be derelict in my duties? Should I abandon standards that have stood the test of time, lo these last three years? Should I neglect my responsibilities? Would The Lady display the Award proudly on her User page or perhaps on her bosom with all the other accolades she has received? If the answer to any of these questions is "Yes" feel free to nominate. She can always decline, which would just enhance her greatness in the eyes of many. I just hope a certain grumpy administrator who left WER in a huff (not DB) doesn't get wind of it. Good tidings to you both. Buster Seven Talk21:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I am quite overwhelmed that you all recognize my small and very humble efforts to improve Wikipedia and I shall be delighted to accept the Editor of the Year award. It will be a huge publicity coup d'état for la Encyclopédie because (I should not really be disclosing this, but I know it will go no further) dear little Mr Trump is pursuing me quite assiduously and I am quite expecting to be the next Michelle Obama; in fact, I have already ordered several kilometers of Rose Chintz for the redecoration of the White House. Unbeknownst to the press and media, Donald and I have been an item for some time. He relies on me for my attuned political perception and intuition. Oh how fortunate are the good people of America, not since the days of dear poor Eva will the world have experience such a beautiful and sincerely passionate force for good as myslef. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
The Editor of the Year award in being cast as we speak...24 carats, of course. It should be deliverable before the New Year...but we can put a hold on it till you move into The White House. Its no surprise that The Donald has taken to you, dear lady, since he is allergic to anything common or bougois (sp?). I've also ordered a gold-lam-made (sp?) turban for the festivities. Not for me, for The Donald. He really should do something about that hair. Buster Seven Talk20:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
yeah, I am going to appeal
So yes, I did not know what was going-on with the FRINGE cabal, but I am learning that their agenda is not always in-line with WP, and certainly not it's editors. I'm currently viewing a you-tube call to arms for their group https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rS92GguJwU&sns=em Susan Gerbic Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia JREF Workshop, and hope to transcribe the parts about Gorski especially. Have you seen this? Are you aware of this sub-group off-site self-called "guerrilla" group of advocates? They are right that I didn't know what I was getting into with them, but I am learning. This needs to be known by other editors here, not just rammed down everybodys necks the way they are doing. OH-and I didn't do anything wrong relatively, and this group is NOT acting right here. Did you even see my complaints of sock-puppet behavior? WHY are they not supposed to follow the general policys here? It is really confusing to GF editors and readers as well. This is a big problem. I do not disagree that they can do a lot of good on WP, but they should have to follow the same rules that everyone else has and they are NOT doing that.TeeVeeed (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, from Gerber's blog-http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com/ "The mission of the Guerrilla Skepticism editing team is to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia. We do this by improving pages of our skeptic spokespeople".... Gorski is one of their named "spokepeople", and there is a particular drive to backwards edit on WP links to Gorski, the bold-edit which concerned me on the Vaxxed article. If this is not a COI, I don't know what is.TeeVeeed (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
As for whether you know what a COI is or not, I won't comment. No, I didn't see your complaints of sock-puppet behavior, where are they? If you're referring to your complaint about how "one editor/admin? apparently uses two different names, which is confusing", it's quite hard to take that into account when you don't even mention either of the two names. Please clarify. Is it about JzG / Guy ? If so, it seems pretty minor. I mean, you don't even seem to actually think the unnamed person is being deceptive. But go ahead and appeal, certainly. You saw this section about where to appeal? I advise you to take a look at the possible venues, WP:AN, WP:AE and WP:ARCA, and decide where to file your appeal (only use one of them, please). The difference is roughly this: on AN, the community decides on the outcome of your appeal; on AE, uninvolved admins do; and on ARCA, the arbitration committee does. Think about it. Bishonen | talk10:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC).
PS. @TeeVeeed: I just saw you have posted on User talk:Jimbo Wales/Unprotected. That wasn't the best place for it, as it's a special page — it's mainly for IPs to use when the regular Jimbo talkpage is protected. In order for your post to be at all widely read, you should move it to User talk:Jimbo Wales. And, no, I for my part certainly won't sanction you for that kind of discussion before you have appealed. (Well, provided you appeal pretty soon.) Bishonen | talk10:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC).
OK well I answered you on my TP, and thank-you for sorting-out what I was getting at about how using two sigs was having a sockpuppet effect on myself. I didn't want to parse-out every name involved because it was just something that kept confusing me as the discussion dragged-on. And I don't think that using two sigs should be done like that. I really wish that you would take the time to see how reckless User:MjolnirPants was being, and dragged me into that rv war by acting dumb. TeeVeeed (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
So I am thinking-of appealing directly to you as the admin who imposed sanctions. If that doesn't work, am I allowed another venue? I have some issues. I am appealing for a modification or complete reversal of your actions concerning myself.
1-I have a problem. I really want to strike-out something that I posted on the vaxxed talk page. It has been bugging me since I should not have posted it in the 1st place, and looks like I am attempting to accuse Gorski of something when my intention was to point-out that his inclusion was contentious. Whatever my excuse, I feel like I NEED to do a strike-out for that particular stuff that I posted there. It was never my intention to discredit or really say anything about Gorski, except that I didn't like the ref. for the article. It is true that I grabbed the content from a very biased source because it was the first search result that was not Wikipedia or his own site, but I admit that it was wrong of me to include allegations and implications that I don't, (and don't want to be involved), know anything about. What I am trying to say is that I knew at the time that even-if there is/ or was some tie to pharm. companies funding university research, that I was aware that the practice is generally a positive action. I was expecting to be rebutted on that but that aspect was not discussed, and now I am just feeling sorry that I posted that crap.
2-Being indef. banned from "vaccines". I don't see any reason for that? JFTR, I have IP edited recently as IP on a vaccine-related topic, and I have ideas for a nice sub-section that I was working-on prior to your admin action on myself, but I am following the ban now and cannot proceed even as IP at this point.
3-I agree that I acted in frustration against other editors on the article and in edit summary. The editor who brought me to admin. in particular, where we edit-warred, yes I did that but I feel that I was pushed into that with continuing tendentious editing and miscommunications/misunderstanding that I admit I have trouble AGF with. IF YOU CAN MODIFY OR REVERSE MY BAN I AGREE NOT TO EDIT THE ARTICLE AT ALL.
4- I think it would be fair to allow me to edit the article talk page. If this happened, I would take the discretionary sanctions even more seriously, and follow to the letter. But I would like to have some input there, considering that I have already had an ordeal there, that I am attempting to understand the problems, and to make the TP safer for other editors and users such as myself who were/are unaware of problems with the topic or who state that there may be an agenda that is not in-line with normal Wikipedia editing practice. And to help with the overall neutrality of editors and admin.involved. But I would not intend to become an SPA on this, so I would reserve the right to ignore the article talk page.
Thank-you for reading this and I hope that this can be worked-out without me having to make diffs and other tedious for myself tasks req. of a more formal appeal.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
TY for update, please take your time I am in no hurry, the only thing pressing is the strike-outs that I wanted to do, but they are buried in a wall of text anyhow. I appreciate any attention that you can give my appeal, and I hope that you have a chance to see how I was instigated (on the talk page)-into frustration which is my excuse for edit-warring. TeeVeeed (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll respond about the thing you feel is urgent: I will not modify the ban to allow you to edit Talk:Vaxxed in general, because you have been a big timesink on that talkpage. But I will allow you the particular edit/s you ask about, to strike out the stuff about Gorski that you mention. Don't add anything else. That's strike out, not remove. Do you know how to strike out? This is how. Look in edit mode to see what I did there. Do please say in the edit summary that you have my permission for the strikeouts, so people don't waste time making a fuss about it. Bishonen | talk13:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC).
And here's the rest of my reply to your post . I think I answered your points 1 and 4 just above. As for 3, when you appeal in a more public venue, I think you'd do yourself a favour by not blaming others for your actions, and focusing on what you did. That's just my advice.
2. This worries me. "Even as an IP"? You seem to think the edits you have made as an IP concerning vaccination are a reason for me to lift that part of the ban. I think the opposite. You have described some of the early confusion about your edits, and a related SPI, not very clearly, on your userpage. And you have stated there that "I am not trying to maintain multiple identities here." That was in 2013. Are you really not? I must admit what you say above about your IP vaccination edits sounds to me like you're right now trying to evade scrutiny wrt vaccination, by not using your account for related edits. Why else do you do it, please?
Thank you, however, for revealing the existence of this IP editing. (Even though I can't see it, as you don't reveal the IP itself. You don't have to reveal it.) Please stop editing as an IP altogether. IPs are allowed to edit, but I can't see any respectable reason for users who have an account to edit logged out. Please always log in and take ownership of your edits; it'll be better for your reputation here, and will look more honest. BTW, I've found the IP you used in 2012, but you're obviously using a different one now.
Yes, after appealing to me you can certainly appeal in one of the venues I mentioned, WP:AN, WP:AE or WP:ARCA. A single admin isn't supposed to decide everything about your ban, so go ahead and take it to where more people can take part in the decision. I see you started an appeal to AE in your sandbox, pasting in the AE appeal template there. (AE is a good place for you, IMO, but you must do your own choosing.) I do understand making diffs is tedious. Are you able to make them at all? I think Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide explains how to, as simply as possible. (I wrote that page because I think help:Diff is horribly complicated and off-putting.) Please note that the "Simple guide" also explains how to make permanent links to a whole section of a discussion. It's not hard, and can often be much more convenient for both you and the reader, since one link can save a whole slew of diffs.
Please have a go. It's hard to discuss stuff here without having some facility with diffs. If you still have trouble with them, perhaps somebody (hello, talkpage stalkers) can do them for you in your appeal. I can help you with a few myself, if you write a text in your sandbox with indications of the usernames that made the posts you want to refer to, as well as the exact timestamp when they were made. Bishonen | talk16:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC).
Working backwards, not in importance to reply-----I have trouble with diffs which is a vision problem, but I can try using my special glasses, it is just harder since being in edit-mode makes it harder and some times impossible with settings etc. to adjust font-size and other modifications that help me to see.
It was not IP edits on purpose. I actually went back to find two recent IP edits when I was wondering why I was also banned from vaccines. I had thought that I was logged-in, and they were minor. Reasons for mentioning, still not sure why I'm banned from vaccines in general, and two, no, not trying to say that I thought that I should be allowed to edit IP when I am banned. No-I get it. But I wanted to mention the IP edits more for transparency.--(will continue later----Thank-you)TeeVeeed (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Transparency..? If you're interested in transparency, please tell me what IP you edited from so I can look at the edits. Not here, use e-mail. Bishonen | talk19:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC).
OK-so Thank-you for allowing me to strike-out garbage that was a mistake to post. I really don't feel any need to go to that talk page or the article now or the foreseeable future. But a complete ban, like what I am under right now, forbids me from ever referring-to the article, and talk page, if I am understanding it correctly? Also-I would not be allowed to request admin. actions or other considerations based-on anything that I should happen to see there, if I looked. That seems like it could be cumbersome possibly in the future?
I probably should have tried harder to request on the TP that certain changes that I liked for the article be changed. (IE: I had a problem with, "so-called" which was actually a requested edit from another editor that I did--because it seems redundant and petty to me, when it could have gone a different way, but it is complicated because I am seeing issues of WP:SYNTH and OR, so, adding-in all of the background that is unrelated to the film in question, just makes it more messy imo. Like--they ( Vaxxed)-called the guy a whistleblower, but he actually does not fit the definition of one? If the statement had been a quote related to the film, I would have had ZERO problem leaving it there. If the entire phrase had been properly cited or referenced to a reliable source about the film, no problem. The problem was who was calling the guy a "so-called" "whistleblower". Was it US? That is where I had a problem and I would always have a problem with that.)................so, with that in mind, I thought that the phrase without "so-called", was "enough".
Now in hindsight, as I started to say, I see where "so-called"--or some explanation about how #CDCWhistleblower could just be a click-baity hash-tag promo for the film, may be an important point, IF the person in question does not actually qualify as one--(and it does NOT look like they do). Maybe even worth a sub-section to the article, properly cited with a reliable source that could point that out, or why the promo "CDC Whistleblower" is wrong--(if it is). -It was also mainly a parsing/syntax choice where I agreed with other editors that "so-called" was not needed there. So, now I think that if it was so important to telegraph that info, then it needed to be explained more rather-than leaving it like that, and in hindsight, I should not have been in such a hurry to dismiss whatever reason there was for "so-called" being there in the first place, and trying to collaborate better with the editors involved to expand on that point correctly, because I still think the phrase as-is "("so-called "CDC Whistleblower" narrative)" is awkwardly open for improvement because it says too much and not enough at the same time.
If there is a way for me to change my IP posts to logged-in, I could do that with a hint on how? I can send you email of my IP edits to a vaccine related topic, but I don't know where to send? And it would be from my gmail account? To further clarify, it was not until AFTER I was topic-banned that I went back looking-for those vaccine-related edits, and then I noticed that they were posted as IP. Even-so, one had been rv, with no response or problem on my part, and certainly not disruptive, AND that particular article was not under any sanctions at that time, like the Vaxxed article is afaik.
Blaming other editors, well, part of appealing to you in this way is so that I don't have to go to the trouble of dragging all of the other editors into it, so I agree that I will focus on where I went wrong there. TeeVeeed (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Since you have yourself enabled wikipedia e-mail for your account, you can find my "e-mail this user" link in the left-hand column on this page, under "Tools", along with "User contributions" etc. Just click on it and you will be able to send from the account you have entered in your preferences. (If that account isn't live any more, change it!)
About changing your IP edits to coming from your account: no, that can't be done. If you accidentally edit logged out, you can log in and make a dummy edit, and state in the edit summary that "The IP xxx edit was mine". You can still do that now, provided there hasn't been a whole history of other people editing after you — then there's not much point. One or two subsequent edits don't matter, and I would certainly allow you to do that in this case as an exception to your ban.
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.
OK-so thank-you for all of the great info. there. Above is the IP history of my edits to the (Redacted) article. They were partially reverted and as I already mentioned as you can see I made no attempt to dispute or disrupt the rv editor's changes.
I do not want to publicly link my IP addy to this topic please. User:Jytdog was right that I had no idea what I was getting into there. (vaxxed). The rabbit-hole is deep and dirty, and although it is interesting, as-far as I am concerned on the topic of Vaxxed, I'll leave it to them to fight it out. And I am sorry for not being way more cautious with the discretionary sanction warning posted on the TP. I felt like a number of normal policy were being abused, (I still do feel that way)---by myself, I admit I broke policy numerous times there, AND especially regarding discretionary sanctions, (And I DID take it personal when I got an alert on my TP).....but also by other editors.
And something that I am not saying is a violation of any rules, for instance, the FRINGE policy itself was changed within the last few months by one of the involved on the Vaxxed Talk Page editors! So--as editors, we are being forced to comply with policies that contradict what we normally try to do, by the very editors who changed those policies recently.......I'm sure that by now you can see where I had trouble working my mind-around all of this?
If this appears to be an attempt at blaming or excusing my behaviors that were out-of-line, it is not. It is an attempt to explain where my frustration and ultimately actions there came from. I normally avoid articles with discretionary sanctions, and for some reason(s) I just got caught-up in that one. I'm pretty sure that the DS was applied AFTER I edited the article, (I had a rv earlier that I went back to look-at and thus began my contentious involvement) so I think that i was involved before DS happened there, which caused me to keep on it? Normally I back-right-out of a topic if I see DS, so I'm kicking myself for getting involved and I think that is what happened.
Also, In my defense, although I was argumentative and frustrated on the TP and in my edit-summaries, and I edit-warred on a DS article, (I think,-or came close enough to admit that)- there was nothing that I edited into or out-of the article itself that was so horrible and I think that should be considered for my appeal.
Thanks-again for the information. Regards-TeeVeeed
(I will redact my personal info/IP and add to my appeal on your TP if you don't mind)
TeeVeeed (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
edited to add brackets for named editorTeeVeeed (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Are you talking to me? Kindly re-read WP:NPA. I can stand being called "illiterate", but I really do object to being called an "admin". --RexxS (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Civility and forum-y discussion on article talk page
@Bishonen: We have a dormant account @Mayasutra that has reappeared, currently focussed only on Talk:Maya (illusion), lecturing that Jan Gonda - a celebrated Dutch Sanskrit professor is wrong and multiple WP:RS be damned, demanding that scholarly sources be deleted, article be changed and Mayasutra's OR be the basis of the article. The article's talk page is a wall of post (@Mayasutra is cut and pasting from websites it seems), much of it is all mostly WP:FORUM-y, with @Mayasutra asking me to ignore the sources and "explain your viewpoint". Both @Kautilya3 and I have tried to politely repeatedly remind @Mayasutra that we stick with WP:RS in wikipedia, and OR is unacceptable. But to no avail. There is a @kashmiri user too, not too active, who is egging @Mayasutra along. The discussion has shifted into incivility, calling me childish, and repeatedly. Is it okay to strikeout or delete such "childish" etc wording? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Sarah. I'm just so profoundly ignorant of these matters that I hesitate to intervene. I know SpacemanSpiff has been a little on again/off again recently, but right now he's editing like an angel, HINT HINT. Bishonen | talk21:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC).
Bish, Thank you for making me read that long talk page, I could've spent that time working on the CSD backlog! That said, Ms Sarah Welch, if there are problems regarding the validity of sources (I'm not making any judgment on whether there really is a problem here), I'd suggest taking it to WP:RSN and solving the issue once and for all. Also, getting the opinion of a subject matter expert like Dbachmann would be beneficial, although he has been avoiding Indic/Sanskrit articles for a few years now. As for the behavior, I think RexxS' warning is sufficient for now but I don't have any objections should another admin feel differently and think that tool usage is necessary here. I will leave a note on the talk page shortly. —SpacemanSpiff04:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff, After discussing with Kautilya, had included content in the etymology section (without removing Sarah Welch's content) --- can you point out what is wrong in the content I added? However, Sarah Welch reverts it without common consensus as mentioned earlier. As admin, please, you have to take a call here. Please do. Otherwise this is not moving ahead coz Sarah Welch refuses to respond to requests for common consensus. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra
@Bishonen: Kindly note the actual issue -- Ms.Sarah Welch consistently refuses to reply to issues raised (see here, here and here), assumes, sermonizes (obviously gets personal). Nobody asked her to ignore sources (does she imagine things?). If this behavior is not childish, what should it be called -- see here and here. In addition, Sarah Welch refuses to seek common consensus, and is hence doing POV pushing. Sarah Welch had ample time to respond to the 2 points, come to common consensus; but did not do so. Now, she reverts the etymology section without common consensus. What do you suggest about the common consensus? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra
@SpacemanSpiff: That section has 15 sources (14 cites, but one cite has two sources). Everything is sourced to WP:RS, many with embedded quotes. I am fine with RSN/DSN/etc process, because it is a due process. But @Mayasutra needs to stop calling names, casting aspersions and such forum-y lectures, with "Just because you have a reference (gonda) does not mean your reference (gonda) is correct." The (gonda) there is, of course, Jan Gonda. I have added two recent WP:RS, with embedded quotes, both by respected professors, one known for Hinduism scholarship and other for Buddhism scholarship, saying the same thing as Gonda.
Now imagine what will happen if we let @Mayasutra-types come along, fighting RS with their OR in every article, casting aspersions without evidence (such as POV-pushing, as @RexxS notes above). Top that with @Mayasutra finding it incredible that wikipedia is relying on WP:RS, rather than checking if the scholar is right, see @Kautilya3 notes here. I think this is beyond RSN, it is a Village Pump or behavioral issue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Sarah Welch, haven't we moved on, from the time of disusing Gonda's reference, to the current time of keeping Gonda's reference but also representing alternate meanings for ma and maya? You say "Now imagine"?? Why do you imagine things??? Is something truly wrong with you? Its not the first time you choose to assume. Yep, it is a behavioral issue, because you refuse to reason, agree to work on common consensus, and move on. Let SpacemanSpiff take a call on common consensus first; and explain what was wrong in the content I added to the etymology section without removing yours. Just bcoz you have RexxS to add to insults on your behalf; does not mean you can revert without common consensus. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra
BTW, let the poor village pump be. The reference (Radhakrishnan) you use in the article (thru Donald Braue's work on Maya of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan) grew up around the village pump; and I know it for sure from a reliable personal source. Learn to be civil before you sermonize others. There is no need for anyone to get personal unless you do so first.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra
Mayasutra, I don't see any consensus anywhere for what you've added. Kautilya3's statement is in the abstract suggesting that reliable sources should be included, you've extrapolated that to support your content addition and don't like being challenged on it. Repeating the same thing in multiple locations doesn't make something fact either. This is not about whether the sources themselves are valid or not, that is what consensus and evaluation is for. And then you cast aspersions again. If you don't like collaborating constructively on here, you don't have to, but if you do contribute here then make sure you don't indulge in attacks and casting aspersions or your ability to contribute will be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff08:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Mayasutra's edit was more in the nature of a rewrite than adding a few extra sources/comments. I was just checking to see what changes he made when I got pinged here. I am not surprised that Ms Sarah Welch reverted the edit. As per WP:BRD, a (further) discussion is needed to discuss the merits/demerits of the edit. @Mayasutra, this is normal procedure. You should not take offence for it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya, you said "If you have other sources that give better explanations, please feel free to add them". That's what I did. Now, you say this. Great. Am not surprised really. Please feel free to elaborate on the merits/demerits of the edit. Nope, am not taking offence. However, I wish that you had refrained from name-calling like village pump; which apparently emboldened Sarah Welch to go on an offensive. Addition -- I did as had told you -- mentioned each author's view separately. Added alternate meanings of ma from MW and sources that attest to it (Zimmer and Singh). Did not do more than that. As for your query, the iranian asuras did not escape the magical turn. MW concerns lexicographers (including modern ones; which is why such confusion occurs over root sound). Anyways, am done with this I guess. @SpacemanSpiff, am not active on wiki. Would not bother me for having editing rights revoked. However, if you ask me to follow rules of behavior, you must do so with Sarah Welch too. The lady got personal first, went on an offensive. The main reason is there is no willingness on her part to come to common consensus. RexxS comes along and piles on offensives. Surely, he can say the same thing in a much different way. He does not. So, it seems rules for admin is different from other editors. Neither is Sarah Welch willing to reason out normally. The above stances of her assumptions are example enough. Such being the case, it is left to Kautilya and yourself, to decide what stays in the etymology section and what goes. I do not blame Kashmiri for saying he is tired. Me too, not finding this worth it. Have nothing to gain or lose. Might as well put my efforts into building a forum with much better info than you find here. So, leave this to you guys to decide what you want in the etymology. Thank you.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra
Vandalizing IP
Hi Bishonen, long time to type. Now this is not very usual of me to ask this (my first time doing this actually), but can you block an IP? Apparently the IP constantly vandalizes an article, removes sources and adds his own version without sources. Now I've checked all his edits and they are all made to vandalize the article. Yes, other editors have done their part to clean up after his mess, yet he is still making unconstructive edits. (N0n3up (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC))
This IP constantly vandalizes this article, and apparently the IP's actions are single purpose edits as seen in his edits, not contributing to anything. And other editors (including myself) did their part in restoring the article's original, accurate and source-supported version as seen in the article's edit history. (N0n3up (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC))
I'm not so sure of that, the IP has been constantly reverted by various editors other than myself, his/her edits (in case you haven't seen them) are clearly vandalism and two different editors have recently complained, one reverted the vandal IP, the other one left him a warning here, I think it's clear that the IP is nothing but a vandal. (N0n3up (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC))
In case I haven't seen them but just opined without looking..? You are starting to be a bit of a nuisance, you know, N0n3up. I just find it hard to decide it's vandalism. Please ask someone or somewhere else. Bishonen | talk10:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC).
Alright, if it persists I'll take it to WP:AIV or ask someone else. Sorry if I'm a nuissance and also sorry in case I sounded too imposing on ya. (N0n3up (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC))
IPv6 range contributions
Our discussion at WP:VPT encouraged me to enhance {{blockcalc}}. It can be used with multiple IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses. If you have a single IPv6 address, you can enter it as in this example:
{{blockcalc|2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63}}
The result (below) displays a /64 range with a link to the contributions made by addresses in that range in the last month (for today, that means edits on and after 26 March 2016).
I love you, John, but… am I supposed to go somewhere and write {{blockcalc|etc}}? Where? Or can I just go to the single IPv6's contribs, cut off the IP after the fourth group of digits, leave the colon in, add an asterisk, and click Search? It seems to work. And to the kind of mind I have, it sounds… simpler. At least, if I'm satisfied with going back one month — I don't know what I would do for going back longer. (Change the numeral in the URL, perhaps?)
PS, by the way, yes it worked, but you should have seen how fantastically it worked when I forgot to leave the colon in! :-) Lots of IPs, lots of contributions.[53] Are all those other IPs irrelevant? Bishonen | talk15:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC).
To try blockcalc, you might edit your sandbox and replace its contents with the example above, then Preview. There is no need to save the edit because preview is enough to see the results. When finished, close the browser window to discard the previewed edit.
Blockcalc has two advantages. First, it defaults to showing only the edits in the last month (or whatever number of months is specified). With many IPs, that makes no difference because the IP only has a handful of edits in total. However, for other IPs, it makes a big difference. In the above example table, blockcalc generates this contribs link—that currently shows 13 different IPs. The manual method of inserting an asterisk lists 90 different IPs, many of which have not edited in the last few months.
The second advantage of blockcalc is that it can handle multiple IPs and can calculate what ranges are needed to cover all the IPs entered. That may not be useful in practice because what is needed is obvious, or because the technically correct answer would block far too many IPs. Anyway, blockcalc is an option that may be helpful in some cases. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen, you were involved with this recent ARE [54]. I think the editor in question has again violated the TBAN but I also think my recent frustration with his various edits and behavior may cloud my judgment. Thus I'm asking this as a sanity check and based on a suggestion here [55]. Two edits to the Exxon Mobil article were made by the editor in question today [56], [57]. These edits seem very similar to and include the same article as edits identified by another admin as violations [58], [59]. Would you read those as violations? Thanks Springee (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I don't really know where to report trolling (and I'm afraid I've lost faith in ANI discussions as most go undecided) but would you or someone else take a look at user Dijhndis at Scandinavia, and particularly the talk page Talk:Scandinavia. The way the user comments seem design to create conflicts, and say whatever will wreak most havoc and keep disputes going, in rather typical troll behavior. Jeppiz (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
You gave me a 48 hour block for removing comments from a talk page. You said comments are not to be removed even once. I respect the decision and I also respect fairness, as I'm sure you do. So please issue 48 hour blocks to the three other editors who did the same thing on the same talk page and have yet to be sanctioned for it 1. 2. 3. Note: my IP address keeps changing, I have no idea why. It's not intentional, my ISP must be doing it. 172.6.238.220 (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I will not. Removing pure trolling and personal attacks is an exception to the rule. Stuff like "this guy, who is clearly an SJW" is a personal attack: it attacks a person. (And following it up with "It was a compliment" is the purest trolling.) Was Curly Turkey's post "What a load of gibberish" quite rude? Yes. But not personal. It commented on your statement, not on you personally. Read WP:NPA, where the difference is discussed. Also, you were reverted by numerous editors; nobody else edit warred the way you did.
I understand that your IPv6 address keeps changing through no action of yours, they will do that, but I don't understand about the 172.6.238.220 IP you use here on my page. That's a static IP, and those don't change about. You've been using it for long enough to get various warnings for it, too. Perhaps it represents you editing from work and the IPv6 from home, or something — I don't want to know. But if you want to take ownership of your edits, be transparent about your contributions, and make it possible to communicate with you on your talkpage, you should create an account. The only "advantage" for you that I can see to editing from such wildly changing IPs is that it makes it easier to escape blocks for disruptive editing. Many admins don't know how to make range blocks, especially of IPv6, so they only block the one IP, which would obviously have been of little use in your case. Bishonen | talk07:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC).
"what a load of gibberish" is pure trolling, as is publicly calling me a troll and dismissing everything I say. 'Troll' is personal. Curly also removed a good faith comment that had no attacks in it. He appears to have done so because he agreed with me and didn't want to be seen doing so.
And now look at my talk page(s), 3 people are tag-team restoring things that I remove. Including Curly who you told not to edit my talk page.
I'm not interested in arguing further about whether you were at fault or everybody else; please take it to ANI. For that purpose, I would really create an account if I were you, but that's up to you. I've found the page in question (sigh) and full-protected it so we don't have any more edit warring. You're correct that you were entitled to remove comments, and I've said so there, but I'm not sure you can blame people for not realizing seemingly totally unrelated IPs represent the same person. If you want to be recognizable, the solution is to create an account. Note that as for "Look at my talk page", you don't seem to realize that the lack of a stable talkpage for you is part of the problem. The talkpage of the IP you have now posted with is a redlink, of course. If you want people to look at something, the least you can do is supply a link and not send them (me) digging through histories to find which particular talkpage is in question. Please do that in the future. (PS, I just realized you've changed "Look at my talk page" to "Look at my talk page(s)". Are you expecting me to find and deal with some more pages you haven't given any links to?) Bishonen | talk10:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC).
I blocked the IP for 60h for block evasion (I blocked the previous reincarnation earlier today, also for 60h).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, you'd better unblock them both, Ymblanter. The block had expired when those IPs edited, it was only for 48 hours. And I had blocked the whole /64 range, so they wouldn't have been able to edit with any of those IPv6's while blocked. There's little point in blocking single ones anyway. (I'll tell you how to block appropriate IPv6 ranges if you like, I've finally figured it out and it turns out to be easy.) Bishonen | talk11:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC).
Oh, I see. Well, as I say, there's little point, because it changes all the time, which is actually the fault of the ISP, not the user. One individual will normally be assigned a whole raft of IPs — a /64 range — and they'll keep getting new IPs from it. Bishonen | talk11:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC).
Sure, but there is also little point in unblocking them since the range is blocked anyway. Let us keep like this until the block expires. (One of them has an unblock notice but I have hard times seeing this unblock accepted, at least how it is formulated now).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean you've blocked the range? Because my range block has expired. But no, I understand you don't want to unblock them — when I suggested that, I thought you'd blocked them both for block evasion, which would be a different situation. Anyway, I'm going out in the sun now. Bishonen | talk11:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC).
I didn't close your appeal, I merely posted my opinion as an uninvolved admin. My opinion agreed with that of the two admins who had posted previously. Presumably Dennis Brown happened to be online and watching, as he closed the appeal just a couple of minutes after my post. That indeed was a quick action, but as RexxS says, it wasn't particularly quick in relation to how long the appeal had been open. Here's a question for your question: if you needed extra time to 'prepare further statements on the case', why didn't you say so? As you know from the original case against you, that's all it takes, because on that occasion you asked for and got a three-week intermission. Bishonen | talk19:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC).
Is there a good reason for not taking Sir Joseph to ANI yet regarding his recent edits? After seeing him essentially begin to repeat the same behavior he did at Sanders's article, I'm beginning to think he may need to be banned from all things related to Jews/Jewishness broadly construed. (There certainly doesn't seem to be anything good coming from his edits on that topic...) Thoughts? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
And it's just been brought to my attention that they're repeating their behavior on Joe Biden's talk page too. This is seriously getting out of hand again. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Where did I mention Milgram on Biden's page? Or am I never allowed to mention religion? What is wrong with asking for citations? Guy Macon did it at Talk:Richard Nixon, is that not allowed? Sir Joseph(talk)18:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't act like you're editing to improve the encyclopedia with those edits, you're doing it to make a WP:POINT. This time I have 0 sympathy for you... I gave you the choice to stop and you still refused to. This is what topic bans exist for. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Minor clarification: My request on the Richard Nixon talk page was at the direct request of Sir Joseph, who had made a WP:OSE "do you treat other politicians this way? What about Nixon?" argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear. I see that he copied and pasted my request for a citation at the Nixon page to the Hillary Clinton page, including the minor error I made (The RfC passed by 80%, not 75%). --Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
If you want me to stop I can stop but I ask you again, why is it OK to ask me why I never did it to other pages, and then when I ask on other pages, ask why I am doing it. And I am not editing the page, I am posting on the talk page. And I ask again, to read the Milgram talk page and look at the attitude and behavior of especially Sundayclose, why is that allowed? Can't you see how frustrating it is for me to see everywhere I go that certain religion infoboxes being removed and I get no response? I've asked for policy and I get no response. Milgram is not the same as the other page. He is unambiguously Jewish and yet that is still a problem. Sir Joseph(talk)18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I want you to stop. That's all, end of discussion. If you lack the competence to do so or to see why, then we'll be moving foward with the topic ban. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, but can I ask you read the Milgram RFC? I and BS have asked for the requested policy and all we get is "asked and answered" or we get taunted. Not as much from GM but mostly from Sundayclose. Any source we bring is not good enough for them and for Milgram. Sir Joseph(talk)18:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Coffee, I suppose you saw my recent warning to Sir Joseph? I hadn't noticed he had gone on to Talk:Hillary Clinton and Talk:Joe Biden to make a point. (I don't follow him around the site — what a dreary job that would be.) Yes, I see a reason for not taking him to ANI: This latest ANI thread was archived just five days ago. I really don't see the point. Guy Macon, who had opened that complaint, called for a close as no action required on 28 April because "Sir Joseph appears to have dropped the stick"[60]. To which SJ graciously responded "Support but suggest an admin admonish Guy Macon for his behavior", and a few days later, he picked up the stick again.[61] And now I see he's spreading his campaign all over the place. How many times has he been taken to ANI for the way he wears out other users with his his stubborn repetitiveness? I don't know. (Why he doesn't try to change the policy about the religion parameter in infoboxes I don't know — possibly because he knows there's no chance to get any traction.) Some form of ban would be the best, as he can edit constructively in other areas, but unfortunately there is no discretionary topic ban that would fit the case. As you know, he has a six-month topic ban from Bernard Sanders, purely because of his behaviour in relation to religion in the infobox. I have two suggestions: either ArbCom or a fairly hefty block. There's certainly a risk with ArbCom, too, that they'll decline opening a case if he "drops the stick" for a few well-chosen days, but I still think it offers more hope than ANI. I have no faith whatever that Sir Joseph will drop this stick and not pick it up again without a formal sanction. I'll sleep on the idea of simply blocking him. It's nighttime in my timezone. Bishonen | talk19:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC).
Bishonen, do you see the problem with Guy asking me to drop the stick? I could very well ask him to drop the stick. What he is saying is basically, the policy goes to how he wants and when I ask for proof, I'm told to drop the stick. Sir Joseph(talk)20:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I stopped on Clinton and Biden but I don't see anything wrong with my discussion at Milgram and again, I and User:Bus stop have asked for the policy and we don't get it. What we get is snark and condescension and personal attacks, "...that you are too dimwitted to tell the..." Sir Joseph(talk)20:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What is most concerning is that the disputants are clearly aware of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126 #RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127 #RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes, which were resoundingly against inclusion of either |religion= or |ethnicity= in infoboxes, yet they seem to want to re-litigate the question endlessly, as well as conflate Jewish ethnicity with the religion called Judaism. I can see that the first RFC gave licence to "Permit inclusion [of religion] in individual articles' infoboxes if directly tied to the person's notability, per consensus at the article."; but I don't see the walls of text at Talk:Stanley Milgram, for example, as containing much of an attempt to tie his religion to his notability, nor to seek consensus on the matter. Now we've had the RfCs at VP(Policy), this sort of behaviour really needs to stop. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
there was a discussion of his religion being notable, the issue is that Guy and others are stating his religion is not Jewish. Once we get past there we can continue the discussion on notability. Milgram has written that the Holocaust and his upbringing did play a role in his career so the argument for notability can be made. He chose the Milgram experiment specifically because of his upbringing. He wrote about how he should have been born in Europe and killed instead of being born in the Bronx. That is all on the talk page already and in the main article section. AND for the record the ANI even mentioned that Guy was guilty of exactly what he was accusing me of. And if you now go to the talk page of Milgram, even Jimmy Wales chimed in to support my claim that all I'm asking for is proof. We're going around in circles because every time I ask for a proof or policy I don't get it. Sir Joseph(talk)20:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, we can go on to something else once we get past the issue of Milgram's membership of the Jewish religion without being religious? I get such a strong vibe from that that you'll never get past it and will never stop. And this less than two hours after you held out a glimmer of hope to Coffee (above): "If you want me to stop I can stop". I'm beginning to think you actually can't; at least you clearly won't. You have been blocked. People need a rest. See your own page for details. Bishonen | talk22:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC).
Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, in the process of moving so I have to head out for extended periods of time. Thanks for making the block, it was incredibly justified and sadly necessary. If he continues this behavior once the block expires — which, based on his history, he likely will - I'll assist you with opening an ArbCom case. This ridiculous cycle needs to stop, especially when he's hit 3 high profile politician's pages with the same insanity during the middle of an extremely heated election cycle. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'll risk being trolled, just once. Look Joe, I gave you the links to the two RfCs above. I'll assume that you are capable of clicking the links and reading the discussions. Those RfCs took place at WP:Village pump (policy). Do I have to explain to you the significance of the word "POLICY" in the page title? RfCs taking place at "Village Pump (Policy)" are policy, by definition. So please don't annoy people any further by asking for policy when you know what the policy is and where to find it. --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Sir Joseph is now making false claims that Jimbo criticized me, and removed my response.[62] Of course he is free to delete whatever he wishes on his own talk page, but using that privilege to attack other editors and stop them from responding is a bit unfair. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Guy, As you probably already know, the removal of your note on his talk page is taken as acknowledgement that he's read it, and you may use the diff of his removal to show that, so you're covered if it ever goes to dispute resolution. Nobody is going to worry about risible claims like that anyway, so my advice is to leave him be. He's got a week to think about how he might change his interaction style, and hopefully he'll work out how to do that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Apology and account creation
Bishonen,
I created an account and am ready to edit. Sorry for the problems yesterday. I hope we can move forward and be wiki-friends. Msjjkim (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm pretty sure you had an account (or accounts) before. Does this mean you're abandoning that one and making a WP:cleanstart? Is the old account blocked? P.S., I can WP:revision delete your e-mail address if you want. Bishonen | talk10:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC).
That would be fine if you would do so please. Thank you. Also, I am not sure about the whole clean start thing. Am I required to do so? I guess I would like to start fresh unless of course this against the rules somehow. Msjjkim (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Bish: Msjjkim just showed up at AE [63] to announce to @Strongjam: and I that he has a new account. I've got no idea what that has to do with AE, and Strongjam hasn't participated there lately, at least that I know. It’s a bit odd. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I remember this editor using the same phrases when harassing NBSB last fall (or summer, time flies). They're not just having "fun", they're evading a block I made for this exact same behavior. I've blocked this account, and suggest someone capable of range blocking (waves at Bish) block the IP range used. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Mike V had already blocked the range for a month, Flo.[64] But it looks like they have access to a new range.[65] If they can shift like that, it's hardly worth going after them, at least not unless you really understand about IPs and their ranges (cough). Remind me why we don't require registration to edit, again? Bishonen | talk21:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC).
When reverting?
When reverting an edit, do you look at both the edits made by the editor while looking at the two versions of the article before and after change, or simply click on "compare and select revision". Not reverting anyone, just curious. Sorry in advance if its a stupid question. (N0n3up (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC))
Not sure what you mean — I don't see a "compare and select revision" thing to click on, perhaps you meant the "prev" (=previous) button? When you have the history in front of you and want to revert the last edit, you can click on "rollback" or on"undo" (which lets you add an edit summary) or on "prev" to get a diff, and then undo from there. "Prev" is preferable, as you should look at the edit and make sure you know what it is before reverting. There's usually no need to look at the full versions before and after, as long as you look at the diff. But I may not have understood your question. Bishonen | talk10:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC).
@N0n3up: You're looking at the article history which has a Compare selected revisions button. That generates a diff to look at and is useful if the user made multiple consecutive edits - you can select the one before they edited and the last edit they made and compare them in a single diff. Normally, I just click the "prev" link in the article history and step through the edits made. Optionally, you can go to your preferences; pick the 'Gadgets' tab and tick the box next to Navigation popups. That will allow you to see the target of any link simply by hovering over it. It's a quick way to examine a diff either in an article history or in your watchlist. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I received Discretionary sanctions alert for my account. I dont know what it is about. Please help me in understanding the same.
Hi, User:ChatruSamhara, nice to see you on my page. It means that there have been many problems with Indian articles, and therefore the Arbitration committee has authorized administrators to use their own discretion (that's why it's called "discretionary sanctions") in sanctioning editors of these articles who edit unhelpfully. For instance, an administrator can give an editor a topic ban from some or all Indian articles. That would mean the editor wouldn't be allowed to edit Indian pages. Of course they would be warned first. Note that the alert doesn't mean you have been editing unhelpfully! By giving you the alert, I basically wanted you to be aware that these articles are controversial, and that you need to study our policies and listen to advice from experienced editors. I was a bit concerned about this edit, where you removed the template stating that the article had problems in five regards: neutrality, need for cleanup, lack of inline sourcing, reliance of primary sources, and incompleteness of perspective. That seems a poor idea, as you had only addressed the sourcing, not the other things, and also experienced editors didn't think the sources you had added were very good. (You were pretty quickly reverted.) It's also a problem that you didn't reply to the advice from SpacemanSpiff about Conflict of interest on your page. Hope this helps. Btw, please sign your posts on talkpages (not in articles) by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Bishonen | talk12:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC).
Previously you were listed as one of the top editors at Jane Austen and I thought you might recall your edits related to the late Wadewitz there. I have added two new sections to the article to move it closer towards further featured article upgrade and was wondering if you might review or assess aspects of the page as to where the article might stand now. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Me, Fountains-of-Paris? (Cool username!) Looking… that must be a very freaky algorithm that ever considered me one of the top editors. All I can find in the history is that I reverted some vandalism round about 2010. I'll be glad to look at your additions, of course. Jane Austen ought to be a featured article! Bishonen | talk17:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC).
Such a beautiful page and quite one of my favorite crime writers; I am often likened to one of her characters - Elizabeth Bennett, such is her charm, wit, beauty and wisdom, that it's often said that she could have been modeled on me. I've read the book many times and just love the chapter where Mr Darcy jumps into the lake to rescue her - so romantic. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I see you mean you love the film, dear lady. That's your prerogative; but when my students, writing E Lit "projects" supposedly about Pride and Prejudice the novel, mentioned how fetchingly Mr Darcy's wet shirt outlined his manly chest after his dip in the lake, I failed them. Cruel, perhaps. Who wants to read a lot of old books where you don't even get to inspect the handsome men visually? Even though JA is a very fine crime writer. Mr Darcy always reminded me of your nephew, by the way! Bishonen | talk14:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC).
No, no, I've never seen the film, it's books for me - I devour them hungrily every night. I am a very literal person, even as a child I read Dostoevsky in the original; his War an Peace quite heaves my bosom. I always feel that one is ether educated or one is not, and, of course, I am. I do sense though (I am very perceptive) that poor Miss Austen was hampered in her writing by her lack of worldly experience - my own acclaimed works, by contrast, are so much more vibrant and pulsating - if you know what I mean? You are not alone in seeing the resemblance between my ruggedly handsome nephew and Mr Darcy - my family have been the muses of great writers since that dear little man penned his Beowulf, which I'm sure you know well as it's all about the people in your own little country. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, RexxS. Asking for sources and arguments when you've provided none yourself isn't my idea of a "discussion", Asdisis. I'll revert-block-ignore if there's any more timewasting on my page. Bishonen | talk08:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC).
Re: Our user names
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.
Your copious false portrayal (aka lies) and associated threatenning behavior on my talk page
Warning: If you continue the sort of uncivil dominance-indulging self-deluding false-portrayal behavior (and especially your lies that I have perpetrated "silly accusations", "disruptive editting", and "personal attacks") and associated dominance-asserting block-threatenning behavior that you exhibitted here: [66], or if you actually block me based upon your lying pretenses that I have perpetrated "disruptive editting" (which is the polar opposite of the truth; my edits having been quintessentially constructive, and you know it) or "personal attacks", then you yourself will be blocked by any honest admin who notices your gross power-abusing behavior. Some religion scholar (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't you think you should get a bit of experience with how Wikipedia operates before taking such an aggressive approach? Your first edit was on 11 March 2016 and you have 44 edits in total, most of them connected with one article. At any rate, if Bishonen left a warning the best approach would be to carefully consider the wording and ask if there are any questions. Suggesting that another editor is a liar can be a career-ending move at Wikipedia. Editors are supposed to discuss content (which may be right or wrong, or properly sourced or not, or "due" or not). It's fine to speak strongly about content matters, but extending that to editors is known as a personal attack and will be prevented if self restraint is inadequate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I don't post major stuff that warrants me registering for the site (usually minor edits), but 2601:84:4501:A323:9911:756:AB12:CA3A and StealthForce; look at the whole history log for the Hall of Game Awards; he and three other IPs were involved in edit wars for that article last year (over whether there was 2015 edition or not; the awards were discontinued in 2014), and that was why I wanted StealthForce blocked, and the IP address reprimanded (for getting into a flamewar with me; read the User:StealthForce reported by 2601:601:4002:E260:2C5A:78C1:501E:4DDF entry in the Edit Warring section of the Administrators noticeboard). I hope you can hear me out on this. Thank you. 2601:601:4002:E260:2C5A:78C1:501E:4DDF (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Great, at least if it lasts. I don't really aspire to being a beta user much. But I'll remember it exists, and keep your download link. Man, I hate using Chrome here, it misreads my CSS. Bishonen | talk20:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC).
Fortune favors the bold, but in case the issue returns, here is some generic advice from Googling; there does not appear to be a particular problem with Firefox.
Check your computer's time and date and timezone. Secure connections (https) require that the client (your computer) and the server (Wikipedia) agree on the current time and date in UTC.
Some anti-virus products can break https. Avast and Kaspersky have been mentioned.
Some Firefox add-ons can be a problem. Adguard has been mentioned. These can easily be disabled in Firefox as an experiment, and enabled later.
Thanks, John, I'll bear it in mind. I do have some kind of adblocker and other add-ons, but nothing I've added recently. When you say "easily"... mmm... everything is easy iff my son is visiting, yes. I think possibly even adjusting the CSS so that they work with both Firefox and Chrome. Over my head, that. But speaking of my limited skills, I'm actually now fine with checking contribs for IPv6 ranges, thanks to your good advice and... and... you did something with the {{blockcalc}}, right? Thank you. Bishonen | talk09:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC).
Self-requested block
Hello Bishonen,
Yes this is a confirmation to a requested block of 3 days. I read your rules and yes i Know its for hardblocking. Thank you Etimena (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Question
Situation: The user removes whole biography of in an article without explanation. At the same time does not add a new biography. Do you support such behavior? I would like to get a clear and simple answer.--Valery Surkoff (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
But you've had that explained so many times. Yes, I support the removal of unsourced text in a biography of a living person. "Unsourced" means "without sources" or sometimes "without reliable sources". What a "reliable source" is is explained here. For a really clear and simple answer, here's the short version: Yes. Bishonen | talk20:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC).
Question about the edits you suggested at Rick Alan Ross bio
You suggested some specific edits April 28th and other editors also helped regarding organizing the supporting sources for those proposed edits. When do you think the edits might be done?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Rick Alan Ross, I've been thinking about it, but after reviewing how the talkpage discussion has gone since them, I don't see how I can add those changes. There isn't consensus for them, and the comments of Jbhunley and Ronz must weigh with me as well. They have been following the discussion longer and more continuously than I have, and I respect the nuanced positions they've been taking. Sorry, but I don't really see the "growing consensus" you speak of. Bishonen | talk09:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC).
You and other editors appeared to see the logic and factual basis for my suggested edits. Should two editors control my bio? Please look at the talk page again. It seems to me that at least one of the two editors is not acting within Wikipedia guidelines. There seems to be some sort of animus. Should this be discussed at the BLP page again?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Weell.. I don't want to be the be the general cross-namespace redirect cop. That discussion, unlike the other, has been running for a while, and I wouldn't feel right to override it and cut the Gordian Knot like I did the other, or even opine there. Also, the redirect itself is much older. Let the RfD reach a consensus or something. Apparently the flower meadow at the top is long gone.:-( The uploader told me. Bishonen | talk15:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC).
You know, I've had occasion to link people to WP:CALMDOWN twice recently; it's kinda a shame that I need to link to it at all, but nevertheless, it's a great essay. Thanks for it. Writ Keeper⚇♔23:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
[Bishzilla is outraged.] Little 'shonen block fine! Little Boing give silly warning! Feeble! Just stay in pocket, little Boing! ROARR!! [Stuffs little Boing in pocket.] bishzillaROARR!!16:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC).
Good catch, Sluzzelin, feel free to pester always. I didn't know we had that category — seems a bit ridiculous. Revdel is really simple nowadays; well, you see Floquenbeam can do it. I'm sure all admins can, and if they can't, they should take thirty seconds to learn. If it was admins willing to make history merges, now, that might be something. (That cat doesn't exist.) And I don't exactly see why anybody would have a principled objection to doing revdel, either. Bishonen | talk10:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC).
I'm always happy to do rev-del requests, and I should add myself to that category (Not today, though, as I have a bit of a headache after drinking all night with Percy Bish Shelley in Zilla's pocket... buying drinks is the only way to stop those endless poetry recitals). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
For god's sake. Well, I know those messages are autogenerated when you tag for speedy (right?). I hope so, because Bishzilla seems to be in a bit of an odd mood today. Compare [67]. I've deleted the page. Go sit in the pocket, little Fortuna. Bishonen | talk15:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC).
I thought I recognised it from somewhere. I don't understand. How did you get the notification though??? I thought it was the left-overs of one of those student accounts. FortunaImperatrix Mundi15:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
You didn't click on my link, did you! Go sit in pocket indefinitely! Note that in pocket indefinite does mean infinite! No more edit conflicts please! Bishonen | talk15:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC).
Just one point of clarification. I think that most participants in he discussion wanted Stephanomione banned from CFD, but AFAICS that is not part of the ban you imposed. May I ask you to clarify whether that was what you intended?
I obviously missed something, BrownHairedGirl; I'll revise my close. I've also considered your suggestion for a ban on all category-related edits, e. g. category talkpages. But I don't see any consensus for that, and also discussing categories can't be that disruptive — can it? People can choose whether to reply or not, which isn't exactly the case at CFD. Bishonen | talk18:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC).
Thanks, Bish.
I think you may be that category talk edits may be harmless, so I'm happy to see that omitted. I guess that can be revisited if it proves to be a problem.
Sorry to be a pain and raise another issue ... but looking at it all again, it's not clear to me whether you intend that the ban on "creating or changing categories" applies only to category pages, or is intended to prevent the recategorisation of articles (which is done by editing article pages). I much would prefer the ban to extend to recategorising articles, but I think that some more clarification would be helpful. Sory! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh. No, I meant banned from creating or changing category pages — that was the big complaint on ANI, surely, and it's also what the complaints on his page are about. To prevent him from adding/removing cats to article pages would deserve a separate ANI down the road IMO. If he should edit war wrt cats on pages, he can be sanctioned separately for that. Bishonen | talk22:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC).
If I may, he's not been all that interested in actual categorization work, if he hasn't created it. And if he uses sock puppets to create categories -- as I believe he will -- then uses his own account to add them to more articles, we'll pretty easily catch that. Of course, if he manages to become disruptive merely through adding/removing cats, that would indeed be a drag. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Neutrality
On various subjects in pages about biblical figures and history, I am trying to keep the information neutral and more accurate (wikipedia is supposed to be 100% neural, is it not?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzzer (talk • contribs)
Please sign your posts. Type four tildes, ~~~~, and they will convert automatically to your signature and timestamp when you save. I'm sorry, there's little point in coming to my page recommending "neutrality", as you have done so many times before, without explaining specifically what you mean by it — why the previous version isn't neutral and why yours is. Don't do it here, do it on the article talkpages. For instance Talk:Moses is the talkpage for Moses. As far as I can see you haven't used an article talkpage since 2012. Edit summaries don't have room for discussion; it's supposed to take place on talkpages. And here is a policy and an essay that you urgently need to read before you again edit the articles where you have a conflict: WP:NPOV and WP:BRD. Bishonen | talk17:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC).
Hi - blocked this guy for 72 hours for violating the DS you placed on him - he was reported to AIV and I guess it was my turn. Did I do it right? Do I need to log it somewhere? I'm an AE virgin, so don't abuse me too much. ;-) Katietalk19:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Katie. If I'd been around at the right moment I think I might possibly have warned the user after the first post-ban edit — not the actually first, which was so harmless, but this one — because they're so new, so genuinely green — not a sock, then, I think — and the topic ban template I gave them is in miserably bureaucratic language which more competent editors may well have trouble with. The templates are the worst part of arbitration enforcement. But I've spent the afternoon in the emergency room with an aged relative. (Comes to us all.) And really, blocking them is all good; they have no other interests than Kapu (caste), so my topic ban was practically a block, and we have to consider Sitush's sanity, too. 72 hours seems right, and very clever of you to use the uw-aeblock template. But haha, no, you're not done, are you kidding? [Bishonen slaps her knees and staggers around a bit. These virgins!] You're also supposed to log the block here. Look for my topic ban of Giridharmurthy100 and note your block right underneath. It's actually comparatively easy, the page doesn't have the thrice cursed tables that community sanctions do, that are the bane of my life; you just write it in humanspeak. Bishonen | talk21:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC).
Okay, logged in humanspeak. This is an area with which I'm incredibly unfamiliar other than to know that India and Pakistan don't get along because reasons, so I saw 'topic ban' and 'ignoring it' and went 'stop that'. I didn't even know there was a template but Twinkle had it, so there you go - I'm all for Twinkle. Twinkle is the tao. Twinkle is the tai chi. Or something. You are all kinds of awesome for helping - thanks, and all my best wishes to you and your family. I'm almost there with my dad so I get it. :-) Katietalk18:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
In this case, it wasn't a nationalist issue but rather one relating to caste. No practical difference as it falls under the same sanctions. Appreciate your intervention and we'll see what happens next, although those of us with experience can probably already predict that! - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
'Zilla Beanie
Do you care to argue whether or not this image will be saved? It was just a lark I created many moons ago. I don't have the energy to argue unless you would like to keep it. Tex (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tex! How's the patter of tiny feet? I see a couple of Zilla's fans have weighed in, including a "pocketed" one,:-) but well, frankly... it was created for a particular party, wasn't it? I don't think she's any too likely to wear it again. That reminds me, I should clear out my own attic, too. Life is too full of stuff. Bishonen | talk15:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC).
Things are good! Little ones are not so little anymore. Starting kindergarten soon...crazy! Hope all is well with you and yours! Tex (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it's too silly to dignify with revdel. (Rather like my own rather primitive friend who just edited this page.) You know, too much attention. Bishonen | talk22:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC).
Amendment request on arbitration decision against Rodhullandemu
Dearest Mrs Bishonen, please do rush over to pages for deletion where dear Lady Walford Davies is under attack. It is a travesty of enormous magnitude, where are those gender gap women and Cis people when one wants them? Poor Lady Walford Davies is about to be deleted unless she marries another famous man, can you believe such a thing in the 21st century? If every woman who has only married one notable man is to be deleted, who next will we loose - Anne Boleyn? Winnie Mandela or even the dear Queen Mother: I can only say "birds of a feather....." If she was a plain, old uninteresting Mrs, like pop stars' and footballers' wives, no one would bat an eyelid at her having her own page, but because she is a very dear and personal friend of mine she is pillaged and insulted. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you My Dear, most kind. I can't quite get my mind around all this cis and trans, it's just all too confusing. I wonder who puts these ideas into their heads. In my day some men got married and others went to live on the Amalfi coast, and one or two did both. Women, of course, had far better things to do with their time. Except for poor Vita, who was very odd indeed. One would have thought with those unfortunate equine features, she would have been so glad to find a husband at all that she would have behaved herself. Harold though was very odd too, it wouldn't surprise me if he hadn't made one or two trips to Capri himself in his youth - he had a mustache and that's always a sure sign. All those strange books they wrote too, all that To and fro-ing from Lighthouses, it's quite obvious they had odd minds. I tried to read it once, couldn't understand a word and I am very well read, educated person. I wonder if they have goats on the Amalfi coast - I must ask my nephew, he's bound to know. Anyway, My Dear, I must run; it's 6pm and my cocktail shaker is beckoning. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi
If you find time for it, please take a look at this comment and [69] by an established user. Calling someone a "sicko" and implying that it is not even enough to explain how they feel about someone is excessive and uncivil. Also the rationale itself for the AfD is uncivil in my opinion. I might be wrong but it seems to be over the top.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! There is also another editor Libstar at the AfD that once again taunts me, this is an annual occurence over the last few years with taunting messages about me. [70], [71] these are this years insults so far. And it always happens in June. He has already been warned not to write these kind of stuff about me in the past by you [72]. I can give you diffs of similar comments last year, 2014 and all the way back to 2011. Anyways, just notifying you. As an AfD is not the place for these kind of remarks.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
And I note that as Sergecross73 notes I have the right to contact admins about situations. And that you continue to put fire on this argument at the admins talk page and at the AfD in question. My final word about this.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The same MO I see as usual. Going on and on about one event or topic, while at the same time disregarding the comments of a admin and others. If you want me to not contact admins about your never ending comments about me every single June, then do not comment about me. Quite simple really. BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not that fussed either way. But I just thought there was some kind of need to enforce rules? Or even try to engage in conversation? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
p.s. what a stunning Talk Page image, just beautiful. But that poor horse! Does it know it's about to be covered by a sea of flowers??
That IPv6 seems to be trying to get blocked. I'll be happy to oblige if there's any more nonsense out of them. About the horse: the photographer has told me that both the horse and the meadow are now gone. :-( Bishonen | talk22:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC).
I see what you mean, Jetstreamer. The odd thing is 2001:558:6020:161:25df:cba7:cd64:6450 repeatedly reverted 73.133.140.233's blanking of their own talk. I'll ask a CU. Not sure they can do anything with two IPs that are obviously not related as such, but maybe. CU can sometimes see… hmm… forget what's the proper way to refer to it… but see the hardware used, more or less. And they can have an informed WP:DUCK opinion. Anyway, I'll check Bishzilla's pocket for little checkusers. Bishonen | talk19:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC).
Sorry, Jetstreamer, thought you meant me. Yes, I had considered that. But that didn't appear in the advice given to me by User:RexxS, so I assumed it was to be regarded as a "separate issue". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Bishzilla just caught the little CU critter trying to escape through the catflap! The IPs can be assumed to be the same person. I've blocked 2001:558:6020:161:25df:cba7:cd64:6450 and the range I believe they have access to. Bishonen | talk21:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen! Hope this finds you well and happy!! Randomly looked at your page and checked your "Optimist's guide to Wikipedia". Great stuff! I am well and currently in beautiful Guarujá, Brazil rather unsuccessfully trying to further my love life (TMI). But I really like Brazil and, especially, this city. --Lyncs (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
How do you think Glow-in-the-Dark Tin Fishys generate the electricity to power the motors if not by heating water past its boiling point...? People tend to forget that the once you split an atom, the energy released has to be then translated into a useable form. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Wooh! It's the little user LittleHeard whizzing by again! [Bishzilla makes several swooping movements, attempting to catch the nimble little critter, but no luck.] Gone again! Now sad! bishzillaROARR!!20:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC).
I'm on the run , but I'll take care of it as soon as I get back. Thank you for warning the user and attempting to discuss. Bishonen | talk10:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC).
Hi Bish. Ms. Molnarova, the PA of this maestro, who has been a real pain re his article over the years, has announced on my talk page that she is logging in and using the account of his former PA (Ms. Lapsevska). I left a note on her talk page about this, but she refused to acknowledge it and went on her merry way massaging his article. She also made a veiled threat of what the maestro might do if his wishes are not catered to, but that's relatively minor compared to the shared account. Anyhow, the talk page of the account she's using is User talk:Lienelapsevska (permalink to my message). Best Voceditenore (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Bish and for leaving the COI information for her. I imagine she'll be back with a new account and proceed where she left off. I'll be interested to see what happens next. What is it about these maestros? Here's another one from yesterday (or his PA claiming to be him) who just can't keep his hands off his article. Sigh. Voceditenore (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Closure at ANI
I hope your admin colleagues hold impromptu hallway discussions on my ANI thread at Wikimania. I wonder if I did something dadaist like requested Marek. Be. Restricted. From. Using. Single. Word. Sentence. Fragments, if there is some way I'll ever be able to swing "disrupted economic stagnation" on my CV. I throw myself on your or your colleague's mercy. EllenCT (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Ellen. I hope somebody closes the ANI soon, but I'm afraid it won't be me; I'm too ignorant of the subject and the conflict. I've never even disrupted economic stagnation.Bishonen | talk17:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC).
Here we go again
I am sorry to do this but CA is at it again. I was going to let it go by because he wasn't causing trouble but he has been editing as an unregistered user. After I voted delete at one of his articles and it got deleted, he nominated three of my articles for deletion (Baby Grandmothers, Euphoric Id, and Sir Winston and the Commons). This is clearly a revenge maneuver and I would appreciate if it could be dealt with. If there isn't anything you can do, I understand.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Samtar it is okay I understand. I just wanted you to be aware in case he seeks you out again. You did nothing wrong and I appreciate your response to this. In all likelihood Bishonen will put a stop to it before it gets out of hand.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Note CA hasn't stopped nominating articles. He nominated another article, most likely because the creator is a close associate of mine on here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
And now consider this, IP: your big wikilawyering point before was that CrazyAces wasn't blocked. That was the result of admins leaning over backwards to be nice. I even unblocked him once, on certain conditions, which he has flouted. I have blocked him now, for six months. (Presumably he won't mind since he's retired anyway.) I certainly hope there won't be any block evasion! Note, the above IP post was made ten minutes after I blocked. And why did you remove my block message on ANI?[76]Bishonen | talk07:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC).
The block is a block. You blocked an account based on allegations from TGS. An account that hasn't edited in 5 months in any manner. The removal of the message was based on an edit conflict and not deliberate. [77] Sorry about that, it was a pure accident. You and I both know that removing a block message does nothing to stop an actual block. CA wasn't blocked so s/he was able to retire and move on. So blocking an account that was retired seems rather and hasn't edited in 5 months seem rather... vindictive. TGS's is annoyed about the AFD's but if you look at the actual AFD's they have problems with sources (blogs), personal websites, and non reliable sources. One AFD is moving towards a merge [78] A notice was placed [79] and [80] but was promptly removed by TGS. The tags give an opportunity to fix articles. He himself places tags on articles. [81] If nominating articles from the same user is a problem, why is Alongstay allowed to continuously AFD articles from one user [82] ? 173.52.99.208 (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for protecting the page. I understand blocking the address will not make much of a difference. Hopefully your message will get through to him.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Mdtemp. Yes, that's CA evading not only the block on his account, but also my block on the 2607:FB90:249C:E1F9::/64 range. Unfortunately he has access to mobile IPv6 ranges, which means that there's little point in my /64 blocks. I suggest this: if the IP starts with 2607:FB90: and it's a typical CA interest — both conditions must be met — then feel free to revert him per WP:DUCK, with an informative edit summary (for example "rv block-evading sock of CrazyAces489 per WP:DUCK"). Refer to me if you're challenged. Saving the diff for this post of mine might make it simpler. Bishonen | talk20:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC).
Bishonen I was watching a rather nasty discussion on User talk:ALongStay. Apparently, the IP, which is obviously CA, stated he wrote the article Ryushin Shouchin Ryu, which was created by the account User:Nihon-no-budo. However, I am not fully convinced that is CA because the writing style is somewhat better than CA's. Then again, I do not know why he would randomly choose that account if he was lying, and the user is fairly new so your guess is as good as mine. I'm not sure what to make of it, so I was wondering what your thoughts on it are.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the overall contributions of Nihon-no-budo, I'm convinced CA was just blowing smoke. Also, considering the long-term abuse he's been perpetrating, I've indeffed. Bishonen | talk01:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC).
Morning, I just wanted to confirm something I think you said in this section. So if I was to be blocked and then return under my IP you can't point out that the IP is the block evading CambridgeBayWeather? Right now I see that my IP says I live in Winnipeg, a place I have never been to. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq11:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, it just seems safer not to. IPs generally give some geographic information, even if yours didn't much, and I'd rather not share that with the world. Though Doc9871 may well be right that the only people formally prohibited from connecting an IP and an account are the CUs. (I see they are accosting me about this matter on their own page, I can't imagine why. A reasonably civil post on this page is of course never removed.) Anyway, say hallo to the outed horse at the top of my page, young arctic fox! Bishonen | talk12:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC).
Come on, now! I am not accosting you. IP information is freely available to everyone. If someone edits while logged out, that would be OUTING and it would be oversighted. If sock account Mr. Jackass (talk·contribs) starts editing as IP XX.XXX.XXX, it is just simply not outing to tie the named account to the IP. Doctalk12:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe The Lady Catherine de Burgh enjoys the occasional outing, as long as it is not too strenuous and no ladies ride astride their mounts. And as I hear it, she is "reasonably civil" as a matter of course (if not pride). Softlavender (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. If I can work up a bit more energy than the pictured fox I will see about clarification at WP:VP/P. By the way my previous ISP gave my location as Whitehorse, Yukon, Kugluktuk, Inuvik and Cambridge Bay, only one of which was correct. Hmmm, before I was 104.160.220.65 in Winnipeg and now I have moved to 104.160.220.100 which is in Rankin Inlet, not a place I really want to live. Well, I must away and stuff a 19 year old female in my water tank. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq13:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
No an ordinary human female. It's a strange Arctic ritual. All our water is trucked in and sewage trucked out. Every few years we get our water tanks cleaned out. This involves draining the tank and getting in it. Given that there is 12 in (300 mm) gap between the top of the water tank and the ceiling it takes a really particular body shape to get in. The woman that is to do it this year felt that she couldn't get in. I felt that getting in was the easy bit but getting her out was going to be the hard part. So we are going to cut a hole in the ceiling and have a permanent access put in. So now you know why weird 60 year old white males are putting 19 year old Inuk women in water tanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq17:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
This sounds a bit like Victorian chimney sweeps in terms of the demand for small and often underage people who fit into tight spaces. If it's any consolation, CBW, here on the Big Island of Hawaii, most of us go through a somewhat similar but opposite ritual for our water, in that there is no piped-in water but only water we catch from our roofs into tanks. The tanks require regular cleaning and weekly disinfection. Once I found a very decomposed dead rat in mine. Yum... Softlavender (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Well it doesn't have to be a female. In other years they have used males. We actually tried to put my 12 year old grandson in but he couldn't make it. The water is pumped up from a lake about 4 km (2.5 mi) from town through an underground pipe into town where it is pumped into trucks (just visible on the right). Every so often somebody claims that they found a fish in their tank. Not true as the filters are too small. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq10:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
You may still have fish in there, just not whole ones. I know of a Canadian city where a major brewery was having a tough time keeping their water filters clear. Apparently eels drawn into the city water supply intakes from the reservoir were being mushed by the city's filters, and the resulting goo was clogging the brewery's filters. As the brewmaster explained it to me, to keep their products tasting the same across the country regardless of the local water supply, the supply waters had to be filtered to an extremely pure state to ensure that all of the breweries were starting with the same water. In effect, everything was filtered out, and then any required/desired ions for flavour were reintroduced. The brewery was very popular with the filter media distributor. Meters (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi i just saw the revert. i wanted to ask what is the reason behind removal of sourced material . All the theories exist, we beleive in that so why is that article only on the gujjars of india and not on gujjars overall of which the majority resides in Pakistan. Can you please add the material back as that has been verified by renowned historians not by me personally. I would appreciate this. This guy louis argon has removed plenty of sourced material which means we cant even put information with references. can you please have a look in this matter. Saladin1987 19:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not about the number of references, Saladin1987, but about the quality. To be a reliable source, it's not enough for a theory to exist — far from it. Please use academic and up-to-date sources. Do not on any account use sources as old as Cunningham (1871) (even if he is renowned). And as for the Global Journal of Engineering, Science and Social Science Studies, it's an obscure journal which shouldn't be used. See this note on the article talkpage by User:Doug Weller. Do you ever read the talkpage? It would be much better to discuss sources there, with people who are knowledgeable on the subject. I'm not; I'm just an admin. For instance, asking your question there, and for example replying to Doug's post, would be more constructive than asking me about it. It's what article talkpages are for. Bishonen | talk19:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC).
Hello Bish. FYI I have just posted a level-3-warning on their talk page for unexplained and undiscussed POV removal of sourced content on Gilgit-Baltistan and History of Gilgit-Baltistan, edits that show that Saladin is back to his old habits (check his talk page for previous warnings and his block log for what he has been blocked for...). Cheers /Tom Thomas.W talk21:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's time. I don't know why he ignored my reply above and stated he was still waiting for it. Anyway, topic banned for six months. Bishonen | talk10:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC).
Dear Bishonen, there are other users that are ready to reinstate the problematic stuff of Saladin1987 [85]. You would see perfectly sourced content deleted and replaced with Saladin's OR (with two spurious citations, p. 297 of the book is the last page of the index!) Perhaps a warning would be in order? In fact, the only thing this user seems to do in a day's work is to revert me or other editors that he wants to pick on [86]. It is becoming a huge time sink. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Contributions with seconds
Re our discussion here, I thought I should give that page a rest so am replying here. It's a bit weird, but it is possible to see a timestamp including seconds, and I think I once saw a mention of a JavaScript tool that includes that feature. However, with patience you can construct the URL needed:
https://wiki.riteme.site/w/api.php?action=query&list=usercontribs
&ucdir=newer show oldest contrib first
&ucuser=Bishonen user name with "_" instead of space
&ucstart=20120823000000 yyyy mm dd HH MM SS
&uclimit=5 number of contribs to show
Putting that all together gives this link. The second result has timestamp "2012-08-23T11:36:16Z" which means what you would expect: 2012-August-23 at time 11:36:16. I can't compete with other sections on this page, but you could consult Zulu time#Time zones for info regarding "Z". Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Bishonen. A user is destroying the whole balance of the Jat people article by removing relevant well-sourced content & replacing it with some frivolous info. Can you do anything regarding it? - NitinMlk (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
What "balance"? Wikipedia allows editing to improve the pages. I am only editing it as per the citations provided, the above user just vandalized all my edits by reverting them, no explanation given. It was an act of vandalism on his part, I invite him on talk page. Barthateslisa (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
With this edit, I have removed POV by an author, to give the section a neutral tone, also I have added content relevant to the section, backed by citation. Barthateslisa (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
OMG, it is twelve years today, how awful! Well spotted, NQ. And I note Bishzilla has been here for 9 years, 8 months, and 14 days (she has one of those self-congratulatory boxes). That may well mean ten years, actually, because she edited as an IP for a few months and (crossing out! nonsense, Bishonen!) was a fêted IRC personality before she registered an account. Bishonen | talk21:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC).
Sorry if I seem critical, but it doesn't seem like giving disruptive SPAs ROPE serves any worthwhile function. It's not like the user has some history of constructive contributions.
Well, I agree they seem unpromising, Hijiri 88, but I scruple to go straight from a 48-hour block to indef. I've e-mailed you about your other comments. Bishonen | talk18:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC).
TheLongTone, again...
He's just nominated Murder of Kylie Maybury for deletion. You know, that murder case that's been mentioned in books, had an extensive 30th anniversary article in the press and has had recurring publicity for the last 32 years. One of his acolytes, if not him himself, didn't take defeat in the Riley Ann Sawyers AfD too well and sent me a transphobic email (I'm a trans man). Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
this diff indicates he has a personal grudge against Murder of... articles. Speedy close of the Kylie Maybury AfD as it is clearly motivated by an emotional grudge and maliciousness? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
In that case, I even more strongly recommend you to take it to ANI. For my part, I don't find the diff you link to heinous.[87] But I do think you should act wrt the abusive email (which, if I understand you, was from another user?). Bishonen | talk18:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC).
It may not be heinous but it indicates he has a grudge against murder victim and disappearance victim articles on the en-wikipedia. He's nominating articles in bad faith and because of an emotional grudge and obsession. He is harming the project. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The article is under DS extended confirmed but the talk page has now become a bit of a forum. It isn't affecting regular editing so I'm hesitant to place it under DS like Talk:Nair. Do you think a long term semi for the talk page might be helpful? —SpacemanSpiff04:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I ignore them for much of the time. I've just collapsed the latest bunch, which I first noticed some days ago. I thought the collapse rationale might be the best way to get the message across. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Collapsing seems a good idea. As long as no good users are inveigled into wasting a lot of time and patience engaging with these IPs (who would surely do better contributing to a caste forum, and find it less frustrating), semi for the talkpage seems a bit drastic IMO. And actually, so far recently it's one IP. Bishonen | talk15:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC).
It's every edit from Aug 23, 2015 when Christich was topic banned. Some time wasting of reverts and discussion has happened but none of the non autoconfirmed edits are related to the article since then. They are all just forumy theorizing. But I get your point, that's the reason I didn't feel comfortable doing it without some sort of discussion. —SpacemanSpiff15:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of that topic ban. If you think the IP posts are related, I wouldn't mind having a look. Maybe you didn't spell the name right? Bishonen | talk15:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC).
Wasn't Chrishitch topic banned for basically repeatedly pushing a pro-Brahmin stance, while the IPs are doing the opposite? I've lost track because I'm not good at spotting patterns. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, they are two different poles on this dispute, not related except for the disruption aspect. It was the same issue at Nair with two groups fighting it out, as is the case with many of these caste pieces. —SpacemanSpiff16:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There are some really useless posts at Talk:Bhumihar, but not yet a large number. Sitush collapsed one thread. The comments by that IP would be enough to block the editor for disruption or vandalism, if it were an account: "if you see a bhumihar and a cobra, you should kill the bhumihar first, because a bhumihar is more deadly". (In the US we might call those comments racist, depending on what group was attacked). So on grounds of nastiness I'd lean toward at least three months of semiprotection of the talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to say I missed that choice remark. (That's the trouble with these TLDR caste warriors, at least for me — I skim.) It's a static IP, so as a first attempt to stem the flow, I've blocked it for a month. If those types of posts continue from other IPs, I certainly won't object to semi per Ed. Bishonen | talk16:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC).
I think we'll be semi protecting it soon, this IP belongs to Level 3 Communications and I distinctly remember blocking an IP from their Broomfield, CO office for some other such stuff in the past and then it resumed via a Comcast cable internet connection. The posts by the IP are not very different from some stuff (probably deleted) at Talk:Ezhava and Talk:Thiyya when the Nair sock farms were active. Unfortunately, there's not enough time to police all this. —SpacemanSpiff17:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!
...for cleaning up on Jens Stoltenberg. What was shocking, was that the vandalism was there for hours ...and, over the years, I have noted other (equally infantile) vandalism also being there for ages. One problem is that there are only 84 editors "watching" that page, (while it gets on average 500 views a day) ...do you know how we could get more people "watching" it? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Huldra. Theoretically, I suppose a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway would be the thing, but I can't say I have much faith in it. The project's talkpage doesn't seem very active (few of them are). Asking for watchers on ANI is probably better — those always seem to get a few responses from experienced editors, at least. Bishonen | talk21:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC).
He's notable for being accused by far-left extremists of being a conspiracy theorist. The "well sourced" sources belong in that category. I see you've decided by consensus to be blatantly POV in this article. I don't have time for an edit war, so revert it back, but you folks are the reason Wikipedia gets a bad name when it comes to political topics.
I have already replied on your page. Please sign posts on talkpages with four tildes (~~~~), which will create a signature when you save. Bishonen | talk11:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC).
Yeah. I blocked some of his ranges back in the day, but it does risk a certain amount of collateral damage. Ah, what the hell, I'll block 71.127.128.0/20 and 71.246.144.0/20 for a month. They're very nearly all Til, certainly recently, and pretty nasty.[90][91] Right? Let me know if you have some objection from a CU point of view. Bishonen | talk11:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC).
I'm not using CU here of course. There's a 3rd range now. User:Samtar, thanks. I'm not sure that specific abuse is widespread enough, he sometimes uses other terms. And only in response to me - at least I assume it is, maybe he's attacking me on articles I never visit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
Not sure how much use this whack-a-range is, but it always makes Til furious, so it must be doing something. I've blocked 172.58.176.0/20 as well. Bishonen | talk12:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC).
Thanks. Dealing with a family problem right now (lost credit cards in Charles de Gaulle airport) and then off to pick up wife and daughter from airport this side of the channel! Much appreciated. Doug Wellertalk12:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey. Thought you might be interested in taking a look at Stefanomione's user page and its recent history, as you imposed their topic ban based on community consensus. It's not a violation of the topic ban as best I can tell, but neither is it the sign of an editor moving on and improving the encyclopedia in areas other than those they caused problems in. ~ Rob13Talk08:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, those edits keep turning up on my watchlist, so I've already thought about it. But it's his userpage. He's making a point, yes, but I can't see it doing any harm. We've topic banned him, it was necessary but was obviously a blow, and I'd rather not compound it by engaging him about this. We can't exactly force people to show signs of moving on. Bishonen | talk09:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC).
Yeah, I know, I just thought you should be aware of it. Nothing that he's doing is actively harmful at the moment, but obsession usually doesn't end well. More often than not, this sort of behavior is followed with an editor disappearing, exploding, or slowly marching toward an indefinite block. ~ Rob13Talk09:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Commons is a complete shit show. What happens there correlates negatively with common sense and decency. As soon as you cited that, it was clear that you are the aggressor, not the victim. JehochmanTalk12:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, J. I don't think SchroCat's response to me on his own page was objectionable, especially given that people have somewhat greater leeway on their own pages. But both of you should stop talking about (and hinting about) the other. As for stalking, please don't link (for the nth time) to SchroCat's block on Commons a year ago. Give some specific and recent (you seem to speak of the past 6 hours) evidence — examples — of stalking, i.e. following you to pages he hasn't edited before, and I'll look into it. Bishonen | talk12:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC).
I'm not sure whether this is the same individual (presumably, given the timing etc, but trying to AGF), buut I appear to have an IP stalker who is undoing some of the edits I've done recently. As at their 13:53, 25 July 2016 edit on Billing (filmmaking), every one of the edits has been to revert one of my earlier ones... The new user's history is here. Also pinging Acroterion, who had one of their edits reverted too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
This page is the anti-ANI. If you post here, you'll get immediate attention from a group of admins who care about human decency, and are skeptical of rules lawyering. JehochmanTalk15:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I probably shouldn't comment here but Jehochman please. The behaviour you show at this page during this discussion can hardly be called human dencency. I tried to calm this user down because the conflict was exported to Commons and yet I see you undoing this work by steering up the drama with rude comments unworthy of any admin. Natuur12 (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, neither the galley nor the fish can sustain the speeds needed to water-ski. My experience is that around 18 to 20 knots (33 to 37 km/h; 21 to 23 mph) is required otherwise I sink. Judging by this, 'Zilla also needs the speed. --RexxS (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Nice to see the old girl giving the little users a treat, RexxS : great fun for them to watch her water-skiing with a front-row splashing thrown in, almost like at Seaworld. I suppose those standing on the pier are the pocket guests, temporarily let out for a special day. [Bishonen peers, tries to identify the little Bigfoot.] Hmm, not sure. I pictured him differently.[94] And you're right, Peter. Like I recently pointed out on ANI, when Bishzilla swoops, lightning stands still. Bishonen | talk03:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC).
You found the movie of me grannie...caught in the buff after what was suppose to be a peaceful dip but so rudely interrupted by less evolved humanoids. If only I'd been more than a wee lad then, heads woulda rolled I tell you.--MONGO17:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the pics, I think we have a truly AWSM movie pitch on our hands: Mutant Walleye vs. Giga-Galley. Tagline suggestions?
You have to explain me why you blocked me.TechnicianGB and Absolutepuremilk added the net average wage for Italy from a private source and not from the national statistic agency like for all other states as required in the article.That value 1560€ and the reference related must be deleted. They are vandals.Without the page of ISTAT as reference Italy at the moment has NO official national data as required in the article.Thanks.Sad9721 (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It's actually quite strange to me that you simply went on making the same edits that you were blocked for when your block expired. People have explained to you again and again that you must give a reference where the reader can see the figures you give. You don't give a reference at all in the article — you just remove the Forex reference, replacing it with nothing, and when discussing on talk, you say the reference must be istat.it. That's a big site, not a reference showing your figures. You're new, and I'm sure people would be willing to help you find the proper reference, but in fact nobody has been able to locate the figure you give at istat.it. You don't seem to hear what they tell you. I'll give you one last chance: find the url at istat.it that proves what you say, and put it either on the article or its talkpage — or feel free to put it here on my page, if you like. If you continue to edit in the same way without providing this url, you will be blocked for a longer period. Please try to get your head round what you've been told. Don't edit again until you understand it. This is your last chance. I've c rossposted this warning to your own page to make sure you see it. Bishonen | talk08:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC).
I didn't add any data.I just deleted their data that aren't the ones required in the article.They are posting data of a private company named JP that isn't at all the natonal italian agency of statistic.Article requires that one.So how can they post ?That's a no correct data and so vandalism.The guy TechnicianGB that should be serbian and not spanish and even offended me is lasting in his acting.He must blocked and banned because of vandalism.Sad9721 (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
(Please indent your posts with colons on discussion pages. Look in edit mode to see how I do it.) Right, you just removed the data and the source that were there without adding any of your own. The figure and the source you removed have WP:consensus on the talkpage, so it's no good calling them vandalism and it's disruptive to remove them. Look, if you simply run your own race as a new user, without taking any account of what you're told by experienced users, you'll be in deep trouble. You've already been blocked once, and if you don't change your attitude you soon will be again. At least click on my link and read: WP:Consensus. And don't discuss what nationality people are, it's not your business. Only comment on content, don't make personal remarks about editors. Bishonen | talk09:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC).
[Bishzilla, uncomprehending but a bit worried, hauls little Samtar off to her pocket for safekeeping. She can be quite protective of the little ‘shonen.] bishzillaROARR!!22:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC).
Hello Slashme the article Namrata Sapkota have issues before and i have edited and fix the issues but why you put deletion tag again and again. Did you check article before and after ? Did you notice other article ? How you trying to revert deletion tag again and again ?? I know before there was issues on the article but i have already edited all and fix the dead link !! AdamSmith12 (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The AfD template explicitly tells you not to remove it. This is, and let me be very clear about this, regardless of the merits of the AfD nomination. If you've been blocked for this behaviour before, repeating it could lead to a very long block or even a ban. Don't do it again. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!09:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. TomStar81 has blocked AdamSmith12 for 3RR vio for 24 hours (rather short, considering previous concerns and block). Sadly it looks like there will soon have to be an indefinite block due to competence and IDHT problems. Anyway, Slashme, since the user has ignored my questions about the illogical and unhelpful redirects of the userpages, I have boldly reversed them, so that the account actually used, User:AdamSmith12, is now the one you get to when you click on their signature, and posts will appear in the right place. ("Adamsmith" is already procedurally indeffed because it was a confusing and unused account.) Bishonen | talk10:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC).
Hi, I noticed that Nepalirider123 was blocked for being a sockpuppeteer of AdamSmith12. Yes I know this is crazy because they have close interaction with eachother and other stuff you pointed out at his talkpage but the thing here is that I've opened a SPI case regarding them a while back and the checkuser has confirmed that they're unrelated to eachother. They were also suspected at another SPI and the checkuser has confirmed that they're unrelated again. So, maybe Nepalirider123 might be telling the truth at his talkpage. I'm just letting you know. Thanks. Ayub407talk17:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Note that the checkuser tool cannot "confirm" a negative. "Unrelated" only means that there are no visible technical connections between the accounts. Checkuser data cannot override common sense and obvious socking because it's too easy to manipulate. This is noted in the second paragraph of the Checkuser policy page "Conclusions derived from checkuser data have limited usefulness, and a negative finding by a checkuser rarely precludes obvious sock-puppetry."--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots18:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
(I didn't realize there were so many pretty pictures on Bishonen's Talk page.) Don't ever trust a CheckUser when they quote policy. Ponyo, of course, is speaking for herself. My checks are infallible.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Since that block a week ago was in error, and in fact the original Adamsmith is a completely innocent user who may one day wish to edit again after his break (he seems to return every one to three years), could you please unblock his account: [95], and remove the unwarranted redirects from his TP and userpage? -- Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I suppose one can assume "our" Adam Smith doesn't have the password to that account, so OK. In fact, good idea. But isn't it amazing the amount of trouble one foolish young user, who isn't even indeffed (yet), can cause, with some assistance from another foolish user. Grumpf. Bishonen | talk14:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC).
Thanks very much. Yikes, now I see more problems: The talk page [96] is actually still the talkpage of the Nepali editor. But the Nepali editor also has a completely separate talk page [97]. It's apparently all because of the hijacking -- but should those two TP histories be merged at the Nepali editor's TP (and removed from the victim's TP history [unless we still need it as evidence at ANI, etc.]?)? Also the Nepali editor had yet another username even before Rajusharmaofc -- see the edit at the bottom of that first TP history: used to be Websolutionnepal. Paging Bbb23 and Kudpung. Frankly, the two Nepali editors have violated WP:HONEST so many times it wouldn't seem out of the question to me to show both of them the door. Softlavender (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Bhumihar caste warrior/glorifier
Pandit4580 (talk·contribs) has a long history of pov-pushing regarding the Bhumihar caste. That particular article is under 500/30 restrictions but it is not stopping them from continuing their campaign at other articles, always unsourced etc and with inflammatory talk page messages. I issued an ARBIPA notice but they seem still to be NOTHERE. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I was looking, but now I see Utcursch has indeffed them. Just as well. I was thinking in terms of a TBAN, but it's really the same thing when they only have one interest. A lot simpler, too, and as Utcursch says in the block log, there are clearly competence concerns as well as intransigence. Bishonen | talk21:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC).
h
Should I have to put up with this?
I accept some "rough and tumble" in debate, but should I have to put up with this comment from John Cline? As you know, I rarely drink alcohol, so I find the "in a drunken stupor" jibe very inappropriate, but the "seek medical attention right away for an apparent decline of cognition" is simply beyond the pale for me. I know I'm advanced in years, but I don't see that as a reason why I should have to accept another editor casting aspersions on my mental abilities. --RexxS (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I must admit, I winced when I read that, and consider it to be an ill-thought out comment, at best. But having said that, and playing devil's advocate here, would he have been expected to know what your drinking habits were? Also, I see he did redact it when he saw that it upset you. Oh, and by the way; you're only as old as you feel. -- CassiantoTalk22:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that was disagreeable; a good example of the kind of thing people would probably never say face to face, but (I suppose) think is merely jokey in text. He did redact it, though. I'm always sorry to see the anger infoboxes (of all things, seriously) give rise to. I see it's gone to ARCA now. I'm so glad I'm not an arb. Bishonen | talk23:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC).
I don't suppose the vast majority of editors would be aware of the old maxim "don't drink and dive", so he couldn't be expected to know. On the other hand, I do know folks who have (or have had) problems with alcoholism, and it's really not a joking matter. As for infobox anger, I just don't understand it. It genuinely doesn't bother me when an article has no infobox, and I would never have been the person to add one to Holst's article. But when I see that somebody's added a hidden comment telling other editors not to add an infobox, even though there has never been any debate about it, I felt obliged to support the editor who removed the comment. --Don Quixote de la Mancha (tilt) 15:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
By "this version" of Batman, I assume you mean "the one true version" of Batman. I showed an episode to my stupid kids the other day, and they pronounced it "weird" and "dumb". So I've disinherited them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Well Floq, I know it was a tough decision but it had to be done - Hee Hee. OTOH weird can be glorious and you might have set them on the road to enjoying that one day :-) Bish I like the pic you found for those of us to see when we edit your talk page. Now if we could just get Stan and Ollie to dance on somewhere in it!! MarnetteD|Talk02:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello little stalkers. Darwinbish saw a tipsy TOC like that on somebody's page and gave me one. Ollie and Stan got deleted, shame! And another shame is that apparently I can't use this supercool animated version of tipsy, where Bishapod gets really seasick, on Wikipedia. Or so User:RexxS says.[99] Why, Rex? Won't it work, or is it just verboten? Bishonen | talk07:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC).
To get it to work, it needs the @keyframes wobble to be created in a cascading style sheet (you can't define it in-line). You could do that in your own Special:Mypage/common.css, but sadly only you would then see it. We would need to convince the folks at Mediawiki:Common.css to include the @keyframes stuff, and they don't have a huge reputation for granting fun requests. --RexxS (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Bish: See Maya (illusion) where an edit war and persistent disruption since January 2016 by @Kashmiri has flared for the third time. Professors such as Jan Gonda and others were apparently incompetent and not reliable for @Kashmiri in the past, now not qualified/needed and can be mass deleted in @Kashmiri's view, withanedit war. Again. A newbie account has joined the "lets delete scholarly sources and sourced content" edit war. I am wondering what is the best way (semi-protect?) to deal with SPA newbie accounts adding to the disruption? There is an RSN in progress on this, fwiw. @RexxS has joined the discussion on that article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
And now at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, despite a clear note at the top of the page "Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.", Kashmiri has re-engaged in personal attacks on Ms Sarah Welch:
"Ms Sarah Welch has shamelessly manipulated my words"
Kashmiri's whole contribution there is an ad hominem argument that Sarah Welch isn't a Sanskrit scholar and shouldn't be arguing with someone who is. Is there sufficient to ask for WP:AC/DS or do you think I should pursue a request for a topic ban at WP:AN? --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
AN? Like, propose a community topic ban? No, don't do that, RexxS, I don't think you'll raise enough interest. WP:AE, if anything. But I'll take a look, tomorrow at the latest, so I'd wait for that if I were you. As I explained a little while ago to a user I had topic banned, they're discretionary sanctions, i. e. they're within admin discretion. Note also that I have warned the user (promptly removed, just like your own warning). I don't have any time right now, and of course I can't promise anything, but I'll definitely take a look later. Bishonen | talk22:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for the advice, Chère; I'm not a frequent visitor to the Great Dismal Swamp, and I'm happy to avoid it. I'm not in any rush anyway, unless some more meat/sock-puppets turn up. I'm hopeful that Kashmiri will realise that the policies on sourcing aren't subject to his own idiosyncratic views, and that he'll lay off Sarah Welch. Let's see how it all pans out. --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The user is not acting in a very agreeable or collaborative way, certainly, RexxS; removing all criticism and warnings from their page seems contemptuous of others' opinions, and the remarks on RSN and elsewhere about Ms Sarah Welch's editing are overly personal. However, I don't see anything actionable at present. The removal of posts on their talkpage is allowed, as you know, and they have been warned about civility, by both you and me. Nothing more to be done right now IMO, though of course you can take it to WP:AE if you think other admins will view it differently. (And please let me know if there should be something outrageous.) Bishonen | talk15:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC).
Image questions at Austen page
Over the week-end I did put in a renomination of the Austen page now that the GOCE review was done for the article. Someone has made inquiry there concerning some of the images on the FA assessment page (version II) which I thought you might be able to look at. The images were selected by the late Wadewitz and although I could easily exchange them for other Austen related images, I did want to be respectful of the choices which the late Wadewitz made when she originally included those images now under question. Possibly you could let me know which images need to be updated and which ones replaced. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Its nice to see a little humour in this corner of Wikipedia. I think the ammendation of RexxS are useful changes to these images issue there at Austen [100]. The new assessment seems to be off to a slow start, possibly the slow summer month of August, though if time allows you might check my wording in introducing the new assessment to see if its ok. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I've just applied a few accessibility fixes for you and done an accessibility review at the FAC. There's a convention among reviewers that they generally ignore accessibility, but our best articles really ought to be accessible, and I don't see any problem in reminding them that Jane Austen is a good example. --RexxS (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I'm willing to make a small wager that somebody will complain that in the references, the capitalisation of Ed./ed. is inconsistent and that Wiltshire's two monographs are not in chronological order. But those are the only problems I could spot. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Those were very nice changes you made, RexxS, and I am supporting you in your trying to reason with User:Ling at the assessment page for Austen. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Prioryman. Well, there's one way it's not superseded: my topic ban from a sensitive BLP was indefinite, and I believe should remain so, whereas the much broader Scientology topic ban is for one year. Perhaps I'd better point that out on ARCA. Hmmm... no... it doesn't seem very relevant, after all. I don't see any suggestion that the Rick Alan Ross ban might/should/would/could expire when the Scientology ban does. Never mind, then. Bishonen | talk15:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC).
Discretionary sanctions at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016
Greetings, I'm reaching out to you since you've been engaged in enforcing discretionary sanctions at the Trump articles. An edit I made to consolidate sections and remove redundant content was reverted at this article. The revert had the effect of restoring the redundant content (reference to March 2016 letter). I notified the editor of the issue and requested a self-rv, but that has been disregarded. The editor has been previously notified that discretionary sanctions are in effect at the article. Can you please take a look and confirm whether discretionary sanctions have been violated? (Ping: User:Gouncbeatduke) Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Pardon my lack of understanding, but when I read the DS notice, it says "Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Doesn't this mean that for sanctions to be breached, there has to be (1) an edit; (2) a reversion of that edit; and (3) a reinstatement of that edit without talk page consensus? I can only see two edits in your sequence. I can't see where Gouncbeatduke reinstated an edit that had been challenged (by reversion). Am I missing something? --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
And here's a reciprocal example.... I made a number of edits] at Hillary Clinton. Gouncbeatduke reverted them en masse with the edit summary "The old version of this was much better than the new one for many reasons, please bring changes to the talk page". Instead of restoring my edits, I started a Talk page discussion. However if I've been operating with a mistaken understanding of this DS requirement, I'd like to know. I can then edit accordingly moving forward.CFredkin (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It's too complicated for me to fathom tonight, CFredkin, since a number of changes and moving-around of content were involved. (It's too late in my timezone for that kind of thing. And in RexxS's timezone too, one would think, but he seems to be annoyingly alert at all hours, so I daresay he's got it right.) I'll look properly tomorrow. Bishonen | talk22:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC).
OK, let's hope a good night's sleep has restored my wits, CFredkin. So Gouncbeatduke didn't restore their own edit, they restored Melanie's edit. (That means your "reciprocal example" isn't the same thing.) I had to think about it to conclude that the DS page notice on article talk actually refers to any edit, not just to any edit by the person themselves. And I'm still not 100% sure. A new user such as GBD can hardly be expected to figure out subtleties that admins are uncertain about. Also, after their edit, GBD promptly started a discussion of the issue on talk. Pace RexxS, I think your complaint is technically correct, but is overly technical. By contrast, I have in fact been concerned about GBD's editing as regards civility — in fact, though I didn't mention names, some of their posts were the immediate occasion for my general "civility warning" on Talk:Donald Trump.[101] But as far as I've seen, they were only rude when quite new, and before my general warning — calling you a vandal, for instance, which is quite unacceptable — but have posted properly since then. Water under the bridge, in other words. Bishonen | talk13:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for taking the time to look into this. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like my interpretation of the DS requirement is correct, but that your inclination is to give Gouncbeatduke a pass in this instance given his relative inexperience. I can understand that. But I think it would be worthwhile to consider pointing out to him/her that technically he/she violated the requirement. Otherwise, I don't think his/her behavior will change. (He/she is certainly ignoring my warnings.)CFredkin (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, CFredkin, but I'd rather not. My momentum re the Donald Trump articles drained out of me when I got this crap on my page for my efforts there. (We're all volunteers, and sometimes we lose heart.) I didn't mind responding to your polite query, but that's as far as I'll go. Unless I see extraordinary cause, I'm not going to sanction or warn anybody for their editing there any more. If it's worth it to you to get GBD warned, I'm afraid you'll have to either appeal to another admin or take it to ANI or WP:AE. Bishonen | talk22:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC).
I feel like I'm walking through a minefield when I'm adminning there. One wrong word and I'll have editors yelling about how I'm showing favoritism to the "other" side. We really need something short of AE to handle the day to day stuff on those set of articles. I'd love it if we could set up a page where editors could go for their DS questions and requests and a panel of three admins would answer them. --NeilNtalk to me17:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
What this place needs is an administrator that would happily block everybody and that's former admin MONGO!!! VOTE MONGO FOR ADMINISTRATOR 2016!!!--MONGO08:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
MONGO FOR ADMIN!!!
Topic Bans
Hi Bishonen. Just to clarify - a topic ban from Donald Trump related articles also covers noticeboards and other drama pages, and specifically reports which involve Donald Trump articles on these boards, right? (At least that's how these t-bans have been interpreted in the past).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to pretend to speak for Volunteer Marek, but I had a similar question when reviewing Doc9871's edits to this page. At the time, the close of the case against Doc9871 was still viewable on the main page as he made his remarks against Volunteer Marek (the one who initiated the initial AE request against Doc). I'm still new here, but it struck me as odd that it would be permissible for such retaliatory remarks to be submitted as part of AE, particularly when the evidence in the scope of the case against VM falls under the topic ban prescribed. I consider myself a patient person, but I honestly can't understand how VM has made it this far in the process without giving up.
I would also note that another administrator, Coffee, essentially said that Doc's behavior was acceptable on another talk page [102]. I can't be sure if he meant that singular edit on the same talk page (the implication would be he was unaware of the context at AE) or if he meant the behavior at AE as well. Lizzius (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think it depends on the admin. I was blocked for supposedly violating my topic ban when I made a comment that had nothing to do with my topic ban at an AE action against someone where the underlying AE was about my topic ban. What I was told was that just commenting on the AE was a violation of my topic ban. So, if the AE request is about topic X and you are banned from topic X then commenting in the AE is a violation. Sir Joseph(talk)14:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that makes sense, though I'm sorry it wasn't clear for you at the start, Sir Joseph. Just a note: looking closer at the history, it seems that Doc9871 made the edits to Drmies talk page before adding his opinion to AE, as though he took Coffee's reply (and implicit dismissal of any concerns VM may have had) as permission to proceed. I apologize if that assessment seems cynical. This case (and last month's case in American Politics 2) has shaken my trust in the admin corps, to say the least. Lizzius (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Coffee blocked me twice for editing those very specific discretionary sanctioned pages before Bishzilla's little topic ban. If anyone would know if there was "disruption" happening in that very specific topic area, one would think it would be Coffee. Right? Interacting with Volunteer Marek on something that has nothing to do with the topic I was banned from is not a violation of said topic ban. Absolutely reaching here, folks. Doctalk14:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Commenting on an AE report filed against me in which my edits at the Donald Trump article are *exactly* the locus of dispute is a pretty clear violation of your topic ban. It is not "Interacting with Volunteer Marek on something that has nothing to do with the topic I was banned from". It has everything to do with your topic ban. What's worse, is that you got your topic ban for making personal attacks against me, and then you showed up at the WP:AE to continue this behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
"It shows clear disregard for Wikipedia policies, a nasty WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, dishonesty, manipulation, obscurantism, tendentiousness and... very problematic POV." You hypocritically don't practice what you preach. Personal attacks against you are actual personal attacks, but you are above that sort of thing?! That's a blatant lie. Gimme a break! Doctalk07:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
"Bishzilla's little topic ban"? [Bishzilla's rare belly laugh rolls across Wikipedia, the mere sound waves sending the tiny little doc tumbling arse over tip.] Bishzilla bans never little! Always place BIG bans! bishzillaROARR!!16:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC).
Well, yeah, Coffee shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near admin tools, nor had his admin status reinstated after being desysopped. Since by some cosmic mistake of the universe, he is now an admin, he should still be kept as far away as possible from anything with the words "discretionary" and "sanctions" in it, since he doesn't seem to understand what the first word means and enjoys the second way too much. So I'm definitely sympathetic to anyone (yes, even including Doc9871) who's had the misfortune of falling victim to Coffee's erratic and immature behavior. But two wrongs don't make a right, Type I and Type II error and all that. The problem with Doc9871 is that *he knows* he's being disruptive and breaking his topic ban, but doesn't seem to care, because apparently it's more important to him to be able to throw insults and attacks at me than avoiding sanctions. I'd be entirely satisfied if he simply removed or stroke his comments at the WP:AE report. Otherwise, this is a pretty strong signal that their behavior is getting out of hand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not striking one thing at the AE. I know that I am not being "disruptive" there; rather, you are trying to paint my comments as disruptive. It hasn't been working. Now at least 3 admins have not seen fit to take any action on your false allegation that I violated my topic ban. This includes the admin who blocked me twice, the admin who issued the topic ban, and an active arbitrator. They would know if the topic ban was violated a lot better than you! You can't expand my Trump topic ban to you and your broader activities simply because Trump falls into the American politics 2 realm. I can't currently edit Trump-related pages. I am absolutely not prohibited from commenting on you at AE. So give up trying to get me in trouble when I did nothing wrong. I've watched Bish's page for many years, BTW, and I'll leave this discussion now. Bye. Doctalk05:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You are not only violating your topic ban you are doing so in a way which is exactly what you were topic banned for. You have no reason to comment here. Your only purpose is to insult and to try and exact petty revenge for some imagined wrong (even though your topic ban is entirely your own fault). Even IF this wasn't a topic ban violation, it would still be disruptive behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that the three admins I mentioned here, who have vastly more experience in these matters than you, are wrong while you are right? Are they just not "getting it"? You keep claiming that I "clearly" violated my topic ban. Well?! If it were so clear I would have been already been blocked for it! I am done arguing with you. Go write another novel at AE. See where that gets you. Doctalk13:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Bish: It looks like @SpacemanSpiff is away since August 1 (good for him). He had issued a final warning to @Mayasutra in April 2016. But, @Mayasutra is back with personal attacks, this time in Kapila article, casting aspersions on @RexxS, and me here. It is not one time, but repetitive. The battleground approach of @Mayasutra is apparent in a response to @Diannaa, who cautioned @Mayasutra about large scale cut-paste from a non-free source here. Previously, @Mayasutra had taken a battleground approach with @Kautilya3, @RexxS and me in the Maya (illusion) article, and @SpacemanSpiff's final warning put an end to that episode. I have been cleaning up the article after @Mayasutra edits to Kapila, but the personal attacks and forum-y posts by @Mayasutra on the article talk page is not productive way forward. What are the right steps in such circumstances? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Right, it's a long-term problem. I've blocked for 48 hours. Ms Sarah Welch, are you trying to ping users by writing an "@"? Because that doesn't work. You have to either link their name like this [[User:SpacemanSpiff]] or use some ping template such as {{yo|SpacemanSpiff}}.
@Bish: Ahh!, so I was not using the ping template code properly!! I am quite clueless with these templates, frankly. Now I know. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I just saw what you said to me at another user's talk page, and I wanted to respond. In one fish's opinion, what you did was actually very helpful, so please don't feel aggravated about it. It's a tough talk page, where almost anything can get an unpredicted reaction. As for the point where you disagreed with me, in isolation, no obviously it doesn't look like harassment, but taken in the context of a long history, it was something I don't want to see repeating, and it arguably was. Not that I'm going to look for any action against the editor who sent the email, more like setting down a marker and saying don't do it any more. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Flyer22 has a history of personal abuse against me. I have reported her several times for harassing me on wikipedia. She has reverted many of my edits. Based on her emotional response to pedophilia compromising the NPOV of many articles. Simple possession of child pornography is completely legal in Argentina once again she is trying to reframe the facts to suit her personal agenda.
"The Penal Code criminalizes facilitating, promoting, or
benefitting economically from child prostitution.(36, 37) The
Penal Code also prohibits the use of children in pornographic
shows and in the production, publication, and distribution
of child pornography. However, it does not criminalize
the possession of child pornography for personal use.(25)"
Finally the user that reverted this change, berean Hunter is no longer active and most likely is a sock puppet controlled by flyer 22 as she has been banned for using dummy accounts in the past. "This user left Wikipedia. Berean Hunter has not edited Wikipedia using this account since February 14, 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else."Boilingorangejuice (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello both. This matter has perhaps landed on my page a bit at random, and I'd frankly rather not deal with it. I understand that you're both at a bit of a loss where to go, especially since Berean Hunter hasn't edited since February, but this isn't a good place for it. I suggest WP:ANI. Just a note to you first, Boilingorangejuice: it's a really bad idea to throw out sock accusations at random. Berean Hunter has edited Wikipedia since 2007 and is a long-time administrator; the idea that he's "most likely a sock puppet controlled by Flyer 22" is far-fetched. I'd advise you not to repeat it on ANI. Extraordinary accusations require extraordinary evidence, and you don't provide any evidence at all. Also, you see how many diffs Flyer provides, to enable the reader to check what she says? If this ends up on a noticeboard, you should do the same, not just say things like "Flyer22 has a history of personal abuse against me" and "I have reported her several times". Show, don't tell. Bishonen | talk23:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC).
I agree with you that is is random that she posted this matter on your personal talk page. Hopefully it will get resolved in WP:ANI and Flyer22 will receive another ban. This time for NPOV disruption, harassment and Undue weight. I apologize for you having to deal with this offensive user. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen, I came to your talk page because, on Boilingorangejuice's talk page, you gave Boilingorangejuice a stern warning for his POV-editing on pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics, and was clear that, if he continued such editing, he would be blocked for it. As Boilingorangejuice's editing history shows, Boilingorangejuice has not reported me to any editor...unless he has done so via email. And, as you can see, nothing happened if it is indeed the case that he reported me. My problem with Boilingorangejuice is made clear by the WP:Child protection policy, what I've stated on his talk page and elsewhere. As for a ban, I have never been banned from editing any topic. There was recently an interaction ban between me and another editor, but the Wikipedia community made it clear that the other editor was WP:Hounding me. The interaction ban, which is now expired, was meant to help. Furthermore, as Boilingorangejuice certainly knows, I never sockpuppeted. Berean Hunter and I reverted Boilingorangejuice for valid reasons. I am very busy these days, but I will see to it that this is editor is eventually indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Flyer22 what you are doing is attempting to censor freedom of thought to make all articles inline with your one track emotional response to anything related to pedophilia. You say possession of child porn is illegal in Argentina while my sources (which i reference) come directly from official government websites and in a non-nebulous manner support the claim that child porn is legal. Your emotional fanaticism against pedophiles is not only embarrassingly transparent to all editors in the wikipedia community but also destructive to integrity of articles and the intelligent articulation of thought. Wikipedia is a open forum for the discussion of ideas and concepts. I think you would be better suited as a District attorney in rural texas than as a responsible and free thinking editor. I have donated tens of thousands of dollars over the years to the wikipedia foundation and try my best to ensure accurate and balanced articles. Your response to an idea you disagree with is to get the editor banned instead of having an open discussion about the subject. Perhaps engaging in ad hominem attacks is easier than trying to support a un-defensible and incorrect position.Boilingorangejuice (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Boilingorangejuice, nowhere did I state that "possession of child porn is illegal in Argentina." You love to twist matters, don't you? I'm really not interested in anything you have to state, though. The reason why should be abundantly clear to you after my varied responses to you, including on your talk page. And, for the record, the way pedophiles and many child molesters (oooh, there's that term you hate again -- child molester) usually think is not welcomed here at Wikipedia; that is why the WP:Child protection policy exists. If they want to edit here, they should make sure that they actually understand the WP:Neutral policy (especially since the overwhelming weight is against child sexual abuse and child pornography). They had better do well to not make edits that violate that policy. Not revealing that they are a pedophile or child molester is a plus (not that I usually need them to tell me for me to know anyway). I make my views very clear at the top of my user page and talk page. So I clearly bathe in that transparency and fail to see what is embarrassing about being against child sexual abuse and those who use Wikipedia to spread nonsense about child sexual abuse and child pornography (which is also usually child sexual abuse). Your embarrassing and indefensible position will not be prevailing here. So it would be wise to take your "promotion of minority positions/assessments/opinions to secure NPOV" mindset elsewhere.
Bish, Megawave111 has been warned suitably reg ARBIPA and other problematic behavior but doesn't seem to get the message. Seems to be interested only in labeling anything not suited to their pov as "racist". RP and Kautilya have wasted more time here than I have, but it's a time sink for many editors. Could you take a look please? This is the latest I can confirm that the cited source does say that and Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund are better qualified on the topic than this person here. —SpacemanSpiff13:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Space, nice to see you around. The user doesn't seem to realise the risks associated with ignoring warnings in this area, so I've given them a shortish block as a shot across the bow. I don't want to start out with a topic ban from everything they're interested in, but I'll consider it if the disruption continues after the block. Timesinks are bad business. Bishonen | talk15:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC).
[104]. I know this is about Clinton and Doc9871 is topic banned from Trump. But of course Trump is running against a Clinton. Anyway, even without the topic ban, the comment is obnoxious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything in it as far as the actual Trump topic ban, Volunteer Marek. Trump isn't even mentioned on the page Clinton Foundation. That said, the reason I topic banned Doc was his disruption of Talk:Donald Trumpspecifically in the form of attacks and personalized comments against you — see the diffs in the AE discussion.[105] Per consensus at AE, my ban was not only upheld, but Doc was also warned that "any disruption under the scope of the American politics 2 arbitration case will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban."[106] And now he's disrupting the talkpage of Clinton Foundation in exactly the way he disrupted Talk:Donald Trump: by attacking you in a personalized way. The AE didn't result in any formal IBAN between the two of you, but the reason he was topic banned was his attacks on you, and I actually stated in the discussion that "I hope he realizes that he's on notice wrt to [questioning the good faith of others] now, especially as far as attacking Volunteer Marek is concerned". So it seems he didn't realize it. I'm going to do something about this — not sure what — I have to think. Unless you'd rather take it to AE yourself. Going out now. Bishonen | talk14:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC).
Yes, Jagadeshanh|, but that only shows the book exists. To have an article on Wikipedia, it also needs to be notable per Wikipedia:Notability (books). This means it needs to meet at least one of the critera here, and to have references to reliable sources that show it meets them. The article was deleted per a deletion discussion here, and then recreated with a different title. That's why I re-deleted it. Another thing: you have been asked on your own page if you work for or are being paid to promote Gian Kumar and his books. You need to respond to that question, please. Bishonen | talk10:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC).
FAC voluntary mentoring scheme
During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.
Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
User Sro23 immediately reverted my edits claiming that I am another user who incidentally was at war with Jobas and was blocked. I am not that user. The fact that we both noticed Jobas' biased and low quality editing is because Joba's editing is really bad and biased. I noticed on Sro's talk page that he made the same mistake recently, reading your latest post. Please consider to look after Jobas' editing. Thank you.--151.36.36.57 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to look into this right now. There seems to be a very reasonable discussion going on at WP:NPOVN; thank you for starting it, 151.xx. Bishonen | talk08:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC).
Hello again! Sorry if I try to involve you again in the issue, but it is even more serious that I thought. Please read my latest comments. I have discovered that Jobas has a history of edit wars and sockpuppetry on Wikimedia Commons. As I was rollbacked and accused to be "Anatha Gulati" just for putting into question Jobas' editing, I suspect that other users may have been blocked just for the suspect they were "Anatha Gulati" because they noticed Jobas' biased editing.--151.36.49.214 (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
User Bbb23 reverted my edit of 18:57. Their behavior is disturbing. A check user would demonstrate I am not one of the users they claim, and it would totally discredit their work. Can you ask a check user? Or can I do it myself?--151.18.105.221 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
See here, and the whole page. Not sure you'll get any joy, though. Bbb23 is himself a CheckUser, but I'm not sure he'd be willing. The thing about CheckUsers is that they can confirm stuff, but not really rule anything out. So CheckUsers often go by contributions and interests, just like ordinary mortals. I presume Bbb23 has looked at your contributions. (Right, Beeb?) And quite frankly, why don't you simply create an account, if you don't already have one? Bishonen | talk22:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC).
It's actually against policy to check a user to demonstrate their "innocence". That said, I'm not happy about the IP or the registered editors slinging around all of these accusations of sock puppetry. I know who Anatha Gulati is, and I know who Eulalefty is. Never even heard of Ich Pilot before today. I wish they'd all just concentrate on the merits of the content that is in dispute and skip the rest. My guess is the main problem with the IP is their changes are too large. If they want to improve the content of the article, they should proceed less aggressively.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello again! Since Jobas has decided to stop responding at the discussion that was taking place here, at my request to restore the maps he manipulated on Wikimedia Commons to their original versions, and has instead dedicated himself to a very strange editing activity which can be reasonably explained only as an attempt to bury the history of the latest discussions in which I have revealed the unfair nature of his editing, I have eventually opened a discussion about his editing at the Administrators' Noticeboard which was finally unlocked to unregistered IP users.--151.82.71.159 (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Stop throwing accusations, user:Коваленко Кирилл on Wikimedia Commons reverted the map to the orginal version (05:57, 27 March 2014 to the version, which is even before my manipulated on Wikimedia Commons as you cliams), and user:Leftcry and admain Elcobbola who reverted the edit of B88 5010 -User:Ich Pilot sockpuppetry- (so the mape back to the orginal version 14:16, 13 May 2014, before my manipulated on Wikimedia Commons as you cliam), so Stop throwing accusations, The map that you support (that been upload by User:Ich Pilot who was blocked - in 2014-), are been reverted to the orginal version (AnonMoos version, Коваленко Кирилл version) that you claim i manipulated it on Wikimedia Commons.--Jobas (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Jobas, please use "preview" before you post, instead of endlessly fiddling with your own post. You're giving me alert after alert, and bloating up the page history. Bishonen | talk00:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC).
blocks...
While I have responded to your comments on my talk page, and the article talk page, I will request here that you block that annoying sock IP, that is behind half of the drama on that article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but you were wrong on that article. If you're going to:
threaten blocks for adding content (that did have easily located sources to support it)
fail to block the obvious sock IPs
complain about content because it was"moreover sourced only to a subscriber-only article" (while totally ignoring WP:SOURCEACCESS )
give up on the article by saying "I think I'm done here; at least, further questions about things I've already detailed aren't going to draw me back. "
...and then try to defend your actions by blaming me, rather than accepting that as an admin you made a mistake and would learn from it, then I see little point in discussing this with you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Good. If you have concerns about my admin actions or demeanour, there's always ANI. Spacecowboy420, I understand that you probably removed the IP complaint on this page because you considered it to come from a sock. But you shouldn't have, both because the complaint was about you — let someone else do it if needed, my page is well watched — and because you didn't offer any explanatory edit summary, so I'm having to guess at your reason. IPs are by no means to be reverted on sight here. Bishonen | talk10:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC).
IPs are fine. Sock IPs are not. Maybe I've got into the habit of removing that particular sock's edits on sight.
But I do get your point, there could be a perceived COI in me removing a comment about myself, no matter what the source.
Either way, I certainly won't be complaining to ANI about you. I felt the need to explain how I felt about this issue, I consider it done. All is good. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The gradient of total potential nuttiness
Hey Bish! I regret to inform you that my current music-oriented language obsession has shifted from Swedish to Portuguese, largely due to this recording. Of course it's an old song with many versions, including English translations, but there's something special about that Portuguese recording in particular.
Back to business ... remember this nonsense? The range blocks have expired and the IPs are back. NeilN unhelpfully closed the ANI without addressing the long-term problem.[107] I then contacted HJ, who was the last one to block, but he isn't particularly active right now. (The SPI could sit for weeks, and the patrolling admin probably won't be familiar with the case.) Manul ~ talk18:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
To the detriment of my sanity, I just re-read the old fringe noticeboard thread and the new ANI thread. Man. [Bishonen sticks straws in hair and sings a strange little ditty in Portuguese.] I'm glad to hear Ed is dealing with it. Bishonen | talk18:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC).
Spacecowboy420
Hi, I you have time take a quick gander at spacecowboy420's edit history, they are here to do one thing in particular and it sure ain't building an encyclopedia
I picked you at random from Grammers Little Helpers talk page. I think this guy is wiki stalking me and trying to get me into hot water and egging on some people with some lobbying. I don't mind being corrected or proven wrong but a bunch of editors on crypto currency articles are involved, I believe, promoting CoinDesk type things as sourcing there used to be a lot of sourcing to those cryto coin mags, now there is not so much. Some of these people are involved with the subject itself, crypto currencies and have created a walled garden scene of Bitcoin and Ethereum articles in my opinion that borders on promotion.
Well, I'm sorry, Earl, but the topic of crypto currency is so deeply mysterious to me that I'd rather not get involved. You'll have to appeal to another admin, or ANI. Bishonen | talk11:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC).
O.k. really its not about that subject of those currencies but rather about trying to get this guy off my back [109] I feel he is wikistalking me and trying to create conflict. I just saw you have conversed with him previously on his talk page. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Roll on the day when the community finally realises that these lists are completely unencyclopaedic anyway. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Me again, oh happy day! Anoyet (talk·contribs) has had numerous warnings relating to various articles but right now seems to have settled on Yaduvanshi Rajputs, where they're removing sourced info without explanation. I can't revert them again but have asked them to self-revert. If nothing like that happens in the next few hours then I think they might benefit from some admin attention, pretty please. I issued an IPA warning earlier today. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear. I thought maybe they were one of the helpless newbies who don't know they have a talkpage, but after your warning they actually used an explanatory edit summary, for the first time. That suggests they read your post, to my mind. Anyway, whether or not, a 48-hour block should assist them in locating their page. Bishonen | talk18:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC).
Actually the template hadn't been deleted; done. I've warned the user (just as you had, Sitush, but I mentioned the word "block"). I reined myself in from saying "recreated under any name or from any account", because I'm a very good-faith-assuming admin. Bishonen | talk18:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC).
Hey, not sure if you noticed as well, but 220.255.100.134's contributions on UFAA seemed rather odd, almost bot-like, especially the one mentioning a filter. I left them a message on their talk page with links to bot pages to properly set things up. Thought you should know as well. I'm not quite sure if it rises to the level of WP:ANI yet. RegistryKey(RegEdit)12:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I saw your message — after the rather off UAA reports that I commented on, I'm watching their talkpage. I hadn't thought of it, but certainly complaining that "MrBonner" is too much like "MrBoner" (jeez) is a lot like many of the normal bot reports on the page — DeltaQuadBot has the same kind of salacious mindset. But I don't understand much about bots, you know. I mean, I can see their footprints, such as "MrBonner", but I don't really understand how they work. Maybe you should in fact take it to ANI for more eyes? At least, if they edit again in the same vein without answering you. Bishonen | talk15:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) It's certainly odd. All of the UAA reports are mobile/mobile web edits. I find it hard to run a bot on my phone, but I guess it's not impossible. I wonder if he's running a script against a dump of usernames on a desktop and using his phone to make the reports based on the output. Seems an odd way to proceed. Also, there are three edits from the same IP that are not flagged as mobile - surely the same IP can't belong to both a phone and a non-mobile device? Or maybe he's using his phone as a wi-fi hot spot. The ISP is 'Singtel Fibre Broadband' in Singapore. It's all very odd. --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Update: strike that, having thought about it. Could be a home network with a single IP and the mobile could be a tablet or similar as well as a phone. Maybe less odd than at first glance. --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It's just a different way of writing them (and not a very good way, at that - but what do you expect from devs?). If you mouse over each of them, you get a popup (well at least I do) with the full IPv6. So
2600:387:5:803::bb <==> 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:BB
2600:387:5:805::97 <==> 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:97
Or you can click the link to their contribution(s) which shows all eight blocks. The rule is that :: means "as many :0 as needed to make eight blocks". Not my idea of intuitive. --RexxS (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Probably does. It's not merely 9 Keeps to no Deletes, but most of the Keeps are substantial and reasoned. But if you're poking me to do it... no, I'd rather not. Is there a hurry? And if you're wondering if a non-admin such as you could close as snow keep (i.e. close before the standard 7 days are up), no, absolutely not, get back in pocket, little Muffled. Bishonen | talk18:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC).
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Self block request. Message added 12:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC). 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.
Our ol' friend CrazyAces is back as User:DonGuapo. PRehse first made me aware of the account earlier today. You can tell it is his "style" by the subject (martial arts), frantic spurt of creating bare linked, questionably notable articles, and some edits which redirect to some of his pages as CA. It looks clear-cut to me, but ultimately your opinion affects the outcome more than mine would.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh god. I'm depressed now. TheGracefulSlick, could you please supply a few diffs for the kind of redirects you mention, because those sound the most like a smoking gun. Also, has the Don created any previously deleted CA articles? Bishonen | talk18:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC).
Sadaryohan at Khandayat. They're new, they've had a shedload of warnings and explanations, they've gone over 3RR and they're not talking. I'm stumped because they are at least trying to source stuff, just making a complete mess of it. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. They have now commented at the article talk page, as I requested them to do. But they've still steamrollered their stuff into the article regardless. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Sitush Well, i waited for your response, but didnt get any, therefore I added information in another section labeled history with new citations. You should have cared to read and verify those sources before plugging it off. It is was an addition and "not an" undoing of your edit. I have posted those sources that you think is credible, as they are from foreign/Non-Indian authors. It is on the Khandayat article talk page. Generally an overview of Feudal states in India prior to Indian Republic and overview of communities living in it. Check over it and let me know if I could use for my edits. Sadar Yohan
Thank you for coming to article talk and being willing to learn how it's done here, Sadaryohan. I hope you'll listen to Sitush, who is very knowledgeable in the area. Also, please don't add any more unsourced content to Karan (caste). Bishonen | talk18:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC).
What to do with an obvious sock that made one edit two years ago and then disappeared forever
Unless they made a whole bunch of edits to pages that have all since been deleted, Devildog72 (talk·contribs) appears to also be Til, but obviously a CU can't prove it, and I'm not entirely sure if there's any point worrying about it.
It just seems like 90% of the "anti-myth" accounts that have edited that page at this point (not including people like me who have a somewhat nuanced view of the matter) are actually all the same guy, which possibly devalues a whole bunch of the past RMs, and so catching all of the soxks and systematically categorizing them might be something worth doing...
Not much point, I guess. There aren't any deleted contributions. If it's Til, they were rather more civil in those days. I'm not enthusiastic about systematically categorizing socks, for my part; it's quite a bit of work, to little end, whereas systematically creating new socks is dead easy. Bishonen | talk08:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC).
The ironic thing is, Conservapedia is right up his alley, but their official raison d'etre is Wikipedia's systemic liberal bias and how difficult we make it for conservatives' voices to be heard ... even though (unlike on Conservapedia) they are allowed edit just about all of our pages without creating an account, and they can create an account in a matter seconds (or a hundred accounts in about an hour if they so choose). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that topic ban re EH, etc. Given the history I doubt that waiting two days would have yielded anything other than several more walls of text that restated the same points yet again. Jeh (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Right. Also, since the area is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, uninvolved admins can basically topic ban at will. (Not that I did that; the ban is framed as a community sanction, and logged here.) Bishonen | talk11:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC).
Closing of ANI discussion re TBAN for Jed Stuart
I made it quite clear that I was reading #Proposed_Topic_ban_of_user:Jed_Stuart_from_editing_articles_related_to_conspiracy_theories and wanted a right of reply in two days, when I could get back to ANI. If I had been a person, like the editors wanting the ban who obviously have lots of time to sit on the internet, then I would have had plenty of time to defend myself. Most of what they have said does not stand up. You closed the discussion in under two days, which means that I don't get the opportunity to counter an entirely false narrative about what I am attempting to do in the Electronic Harassment article. It is exhausting for me too. Reverse the closure is requested.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Did you see the section just above when you posted, Jed Stuart..? It was a speedy close indeed, but those are done when the consensus is that strong. I'm afraid I won't reconsider. I suggest you write up your defence in detail, as persuasively as you can without any hurry, and post it as an appeal on WP:AN. If you'll take my advice, you'll keep it as concise as possible, or many editors won't read it — contrary to your perception, other volunteers have time constraints too. Bishonen | talk08:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC).
I am fully aware that there are volunteer time constraints. I did not create this ridiculous palaver. It has wasted a lot of my time also.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I am willing to respect the TBAN. This is no longer about the EH article or other similar. I was not requesting re-consideration of the TBAN, just the closure of the discussion at ANI. I can't make the change I think essential to the integrity of the article, so it is no great loss. But, I want the right of reply to grossly inaccurate attacks on my credibility, involving false characterizations of my behaviour. I was pushing a fringe theory etc. If I am unable to counter that nonsense it will stay on the record there and could be used against me at a later date, which has happened in a more minor way before in this event. That was the threat of sanctions at User_talk:Jed_Stuart, the reasons for which I can't go into without violating the TBAN, but at the time I thought it was off the mark and inappropriate, but I didn't make a fuss and then later it gets referred to twice as evidence against me. Closure of criticisms of my behaviour before I can reply have now happened at ANI four times now. What a farce! Jed Stuart (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
"the threat of sanctions at User_talk:Jed_Stuart, the reasons for which I can't go into without violating the TBAN": No, no. You can go into any and all of that here, and also on WP:ANin the context of appealing your ban. That wouldn't violate the ban. You are in no way "unable to counter that nonsense" in the context of a ban appeal, whether or not it is nonsense. And I tell you here, even if you don't want to appeal, but only to refute "attacks on your credibility", here or on WP:AN, I'll allow it as an exception to your topic ban. (Not on any other page, though, unless you should prefer WP:ANI, and not an unreasonable number of times.) If people suggest sanctioning you for that, refer them to me. Bishonen | talk08:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC).
Ok, that seems fully reasonable. To get an idea of what I was really attempting to do to the EH article, as opposed to what they falsely characterized me as attempting to do at the ANI TBAN request, I will put below what I submitted to MEDCOM around 12 hours previous to the ANI TBAN request being submitted. The TBAN is a direct result of my submitting what I wanted to do to the article. I was hoping that that after a two month break in my involvement there, that they might be willing to talk turkey. They chose to gag me instead. This is the issue I have been annoying them over for a long time now, without ever getting them to even admit that there is an issue. Just lots of bluster and the false narrative that I am pushing fringe theories into the article, bludgeoning the truth etc etc. I would have done other edits to the EH article, only from reliable sources, but this issue seems the most important and essential to the article. And, above the consensus there.
The article violates a fundamental principle of the NPOV policy:
‘Avoid stating opinions as facts.’
In the lede:
" Individuals who claim to experience this call themselves "targeted individuals" and many have joined support and advocacy groups. These experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis"
The psychiatric opinion is stated as fact rather than as an opinion. In so doing this wording violates what is stated at: Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view NPOV is: ‘non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.’
Thus the wording should be something like: "It is the opinion of some psychiatrists and psychologists that these experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis"
I mentioned this issue more times than editors at EH found acceptable. ‘Leave it how it is’ was always the firm consensus. Mostly the attitude has been to not give any weight, or not give undue weight, to the Targeted Individuals view, invoking another principle of NPOV policy:
‘Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.’
However the seminal Washington Post article Mind Games cited and the other RS articles that have followed suit, give more than no weight to the view of those claiming to be Targeted Individuals.
They explore the possibility that there might be real covert targeting happening and I would say that they conclude there might be.
I found some support for my position at DRN and so started an informal mediation which was closed without resolution. It was suggested at DRN that I take the matter to NPOVN, which I did. There were two editors there without WP accounts who agreed with me and seven, mostly well-established editors, who did not. That was also closed without resolution. Obviously I am holding a minority opinion here, but it seems of fundamental importance to the article and Wikipedia generally that the matter is considered more carefully.
Should the ‘due weight’ principle be achieved by over-riding the ‘not state opinions as facts’ principle? Surely the article can enact both principles. This is what I would hope to get the editors consensus at Electronic harassment to consider.
The rest of the Electronic harassment article seems appropriately worded except for a continuation of this bias towards the delusions POV in the third paragraph of Conspiracy_theories where claims of covert targeting are referred to as ‘these fears…’ rather than what would be neutrally said ‘these claims…’ This is repeated in the first paragraph of Support_and_advocacy_communities ‘people fearing mind control.’ should be replaced by ‘people claiming mind control.’ I have not attempted to change these two instances of bias, but as they are essentially of the same nature as the more prominent one in the lede, which I did attempted to change, but failed, it seems appropriate to include them now in this attempt to get the article to NPOV.
Thank you, Jed Stuart. There's a trick on Wikipedia, that you're supposed to use to avoid bloating up pages: linking. Don't put a copypaste here of what you submitted to MEDCOM around 12 hours before the ANI TBAN request, please; put a link (=a "diff") to it, like this. In the first place, I have already read your MEDCOM text, of course (I wouldn't apply a topic ban without studying your recent history). And secondly, it takes up space in an unnecessary way and makes it harder for the reader to focus on new arguments. Don't re-paste texts you have already posted elsewhere. If you have trouble producing a diff, please see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide, which is as simple as possible. See also my diff above as an example. Anyway, I've taken your MEDCOM argument on board, and it doesn't make me change my mind. Please take your concern to WP:AN or WP:ANI. You're concerned about the ANI thread staying on the record there and conceivably being used against you at a later date. The logic of that seems to me to be that you should place your own argument also on ANI, because then it'll stay on the record in the same way: in the ANI archives. But I urge you to use diffs for anything previously posted, by you or others, that you want to refer to; frankly, if you copypaste old stuff, or otherwise repeat yourself, people may be annoyed to the point of removing your ANI thread. I wouldn't be able to do anything about that. I advise you to make a new, fresh argument. Keep it on the level of your credibility and your conduct. Re-litigating the changes you want to make to Electronic harassment won't serve you, since your arguments wrt that have already been roundly rejected. Simply put, nobody agrees with you about that article. Good luck. Bishonen | talk19:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC).
I didn't do a link to that information as discussion at MedCom is privileged and can't be referred to in disputes at ANI etc. So I only wanted to put a focus on what I am attempting to do. Yes, the logic is for me to put my defense at ANI where the allegations were made. That is in the request for the TBAN. I don't want to start a new topic there. If I do someone else will close it before I can get anything cleared up and then I will have to go to that closers Talk page and it will just go on and on. Par for the course. I request that you to unclose that topic and let me have my say. Just on the allegations if you want and close it without re-consideration of the TBAN. Or, if after I have refuted that nonsense, re-consider if you will allow it to stay open to discuss the TBAN. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
You've already asked me once to re-open the ANI thread and I said no. It's still no. I'm beginning to understand why the people who have dealt with you all seem so tired. The idea of the topic ban is to stop you exhausting the community's patience. Bishonen | talk15:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC).
I only did what I had to do. That is, attempt to discuss the matter with you before going to AN to attempt to get the close undone. I should not have repeated to you my claim that what they said about me at ANI is nonsense though, that was a bit tiresome of me. I wont both you with it again. Jed Stuart (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I am now returned (barely alive) from the most dreadful, nightmare experience: poor Scrotum IV ran aground off the coast of Sicily and we had to be rescued by insubordinate natives, who I suspect were the employ of my poor nephew's dangerous psychopathic wife. Funny woman, whenever I am talking she just stares into the bottom of her glass clenching and unclenching her fists. I find that very strange behaviour - don't you? Anyway, I return here for a little piece and quiet to sooth my fractious nerves, and what do I find? Nothing more than an orchestrated campaign to delete images of intelligent women (see [110]). Poor, dear Giano uploads one of his beautiful architectural images and a gang of subversives want it deleted because, by chance, it has a blurry picture of an intelligent woman in it - who next one asks - moi? Am I to be deleted because I am very intelligent? Possibly even, eventually, you. It needs to stop and to stop now. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
"..whenever I am talking she just stares into the bottom of her glass clenching and unclenching her fists. I find that very strange behaviour - don't you?" Not sure — is there anything in the glass? Bishonen | talk18:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC).
Since the glorious reign of His Late Majesty Edward her Ladyship has borne alone. The almost crushing burden of maintaining a proud and ancient lineage, being the moral and intellectual compass to family and aye, dare I say nation, while suffering untold wounds, a noble heart torn asunder too often by husbands' stolen away by a cruel fate or their own grevious failings. This is just the latest cut. Bishonen, I am assuming it is one of the better brands of surgical spirit that her ladyship is referring to. Boots supply a rather smooth example. I believe it is aged in oaken barrels, although Superdrug have been sourcing a rather fine example of late. It has an honest, earthy opening, with a delightful finish redolent of greengages. Irondome (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
What a caring and perceptive person you are Mr Dome. It's true my life has been far from easy - a veritable vale of tears and stoical courage. I am the most misunderstood woman of my generation. I just hope that after my all too soon death my humble if profuse and very valuable edits to Wikipedia will be my lasting memorial. As it is, I shall soldier on (ignoring my pain and suffering) writing almost single handedly this encyclopaedia. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
TalgoKL is repeatedly removing sourced content at Kachwaha that has been discussed extensively in the past, despite being told of BRD, the sanctions regime etc. They have come up with one source that prima facie supports their POV but they're misreading both the context of that source and the nuances of our article phrasing. It is yet another of those situations where an Indian caste is claiming a highfalutin' status, I'm afraid. - Sitush (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Looks like Elockid is away on his annual holiday and I don't think any of the other current CUs are familiar enough with the MrP to work off of log data. —SpacemanSpiff06:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I have topic banned the user for three months. I guess any sock situation will have to be dealt with later, when Elockid returns. Bishonen | talk02:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC).
Hello, Bishonen. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Good, isn't it? I keep a link to it squirreled away in my notebook, for when I get confused again. It's obviously John's baby, not mine. I can't believe he'll mind, but he'd better speak for himself. Bishonen | talk14:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC).
Er.. I don't really do ARBPIA. My wikilife stinks enough from doing ARBIPA; I'd rather not get involved with yet another area I'm quite ignorant about, and also people keep mixing them up. Why did you want me to look at that..? You're not going to tell me because it's an interesting principle, I hope. Insofar as it is, I agree with your comment. Or did you just mean it's interesting to see Epson Salts accuse somebody of wikilawyering, as here? Because there I fully agree. Bishonen | talk19:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC).
It feels funny to block such a big range, but it does seem to be mainly populated by one disruptive individual, so OK. One month this time. Bishonen | talk19:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC).
From a new user
(Moved down from the top of the page.) A number of the elements of the post "Robert Creamer (Lobbiest) are flat out incorrect... including the fact that he is a lobbyist -- which he is not. We was not born in 1948, but 1947. The last sentence in the article is simply wrong, since Mr. Creamer does not know the person referenced. Mr. Creamer was not at all involved in writing the Affordable Care Act -- although he was heavily involved in helping to pass it. All of the additional items listed were entirely accurate. if you persist in replacing them with inaccurate content we will go to top management of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Democracy Partners (talk • contribs)
Hi, @Democracy Partners: Please explain here, or on your own talkpage, whether or not you have a connection with Robert Creamer, as your username strongly suggests, and tell me who the "we" are that intend to go to the top management. Collective usernames are not allowed here; a username is for one person. If yours represents an organization, I ask you to create a new one, that represents yourself alone, or you may be blocked. If you have a connection with Creamer, perhaps a close connection, I understand that you may well know about such details as the year of birth and other matters; corrections are welcomed, but Wikipedia isn't so much about what you know, as about what you can source to reliable sources. You have removed sourced negative content, and unfortunately also its sources, and added a lot of detailed unsourced content; that's not the way to do it. As for the top management of Wikipedia, I'm afraid there isn't such a thing; the project is run by the community. I recommend the Teahouse as a place where you can get all sorts of advice from nice patient people, for instance about where you can take a complaint. Please always post at the bottom of discussion pages; people are unlikely to look for new posts at the top, and so they can be missed. That's why I have moved your post down. Bishonen | talk01:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) I've gone through the article and done my best to clean out unsourced stuff and I've corrected his year of birth since he could not have been born in 1948 (USA Today states he was 58 in 2005). I've converted the raw urls and most of the external links to references, so the remaining text is now sourced. I must say I'm not terribly impressed with Peter Bella's attack piece in the Washington Times, but I suppose it carries some reliability in conjunction with the other sources. I hope that allays some of the concerns of the OP (who really does need a change of username per WP:ISU). HTH --RexxS (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to mither you yet again, Bish, but can you take a look at Rahul Kumar pandey (talk·contribs) please? It's mostly their edits to Kamma (caste) and Naidu, although their older stuff elsewhere seems to have been reverted also, by me and others. I issued an ARBIPA notice but they've just again misrepresented a source. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Weak English, no edit summaries and no edits to any talkpages including their own. They may well not know they have one. Which is the edit with the misrepresented source? I'll take a look later, after I eat or maybe tomorrow. [Injured tone]: You do realise I'm hungry? Bishonen | talk21:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC).
I feel so much better after a very nice supper. Topic banned from caste pages for one month. I suspect they'll have trouble understanding it — the AE template isn't exactly easy reading — if indeed they see it. Bishonen | talk23:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC).
Sorry, I missed your first reply. Their edits are sometimes tagged as being via mobile but that still generates a talk page notification etc. I agree that it sometimes appears that people never realise they have a talk page but I am mystified regarding what more can be done - if they don't realise that then they probably will not realise there is an article talk page either. Maybe a temporary edit notification at the article? - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sitush: Poor fellow, that's the loudest quacking I've heard in a while. I suppose I'll hold off, though, since @Bbb23: has actually said he's in the process of CU-ing them. For myself, I think I might as well indef — both accounts — because it's not getting any better in any way, and both you and I have already spent too much time doling out advice. Bishonen | talk14:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC).
@Bbb23: That's OK, as long as Sitush can have a shirt with the legend "Hero of the Dismal Swamp of Caste Pages". For me the popular "Desultory admin" shirt will do. Bishonen | talk18:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC).
Can you put this out of it's misery? It's lasted long enough and no one seems to be acting on the very clear consensus. --Tarage (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit complicated, since the topics are under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which should preferably be invoked, yet what seems to be proposed on ANI is a community ban. I think admins may find that thorny. But I'll close it, I ain't scared of the bureaucracy. Bishonen | talk09:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC).
What is this about a community consensus on the climate change ban? That wasn't even a climate change community. Most were ID editors. There hadn't been any climate change issues since my previous sanction. As to persistent editing, there hasn't been ANY editing since the previous sanction. Poodleboy (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Correction, looking back, I actually had done some editing that I forgot, it had been awhile. My well sourced changes were being accepted by the community. Poodleboy (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Poodleboy, yes, recent disruption by you on ID pages was the focus of the ANI thread. However, the consensus for topic banning you from both areas was very clear. JzG's proposal was for topic bans for both CC and ID. There was one single oppose to it. One user (Count Iblis) suggested different sanctions than topic bans, 0RR restrictions I think it was, but explicitly for both areas. Two users supported an ID ban only, though not in the sense of opposing a CC ban; one of them later changed their mind to supporting both bans. There were three generalized supports; I'm pretty sure at least one of them, perhaps all three, intended to support JzG's proposal as written. But it doesn't really matter whether or not, because there were at least eight supports explicitly for both topic bans (nine counting JzG himself), many of them quite passionately expressed. I frankly don't understand how you think I could have come to a different conclusion about the consensus. Bishonen | talk11:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC).
The issue is not whether there is a consensus to keep me from editing climate change articles among this group of ID editors. They were straining pretty hard to get it included by bringing up matters that had ALREADY been addressed in a previous ANI and accusing comments of being WP:OR that later comments clearly established were not WP:OR. The ANI is not supposed to just allow people to vote off whomever they want, whenever ever they want. You are supposed to use some judgement. Poodleboy (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The issue is precisely whether there was a consensus among the participants at that ANI discussion to topic ban you from ID and CC. And there clearly was. That's all the judgement that a closing admin is required to use, and that's exactly what 'Shonen did. Do you really think she could have reached a different conclusion? because I seriously doubt that any uninvolved reader of that thread could have done. --RexxS (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
She could easily have closed the ANI without doing anything, recognizing that the voters were merely pressing home their victory on the ID talk page in another forum and that there was no continuing activity of any kind that needed to be addressed. It you just count the votes, then there doesn't need to be any substance, just a mob. Poodleboy (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Poodleboy, you have had reasonable answers from me and RexxS in my opinion. If you continue to argue on my page, without saying anything new, I'm afraid I'm not prepared to engage in further dialogue. You know you can appeal on WP:AN, on WP:AE, or on WP:ARCA, per these instructions? If you feel you have a case, I suggest you do file an appeal at one of them. (If you pick ARCA, further review by another board isn't allowed.) This is the difference between them: on AN the call is made by the community, on AE by uninvolved admins, and on ARCA by the Arbitration Committee. Think about it. Bishonen | talk07:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC).
Do you have any particular reason to believe it's specifically an employee (as opposed to the person herself)? Just curious; of course we always leave that vague anyway, so as not to out anybody. I may clean up the article later, I suppose, but to begin with I have warned them about conflict of interest. Let's see what they say about that. Feel free to remove the peacock phrasing in the meantime, Caden. Bishonen | talk20:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC).
Block evading sock IP (73.202.53.43) of User:Janagewen. IP not yet blocked.
As per his previous blocks on the socks, he began to do the same thing. Socking and all of that. I suspect the above IP to be a sock puppet of Janagewen, who was blocked 2 years ago. First, he began to make false reverts which is disruptive. Then, I found one of his evading creations of user talk pages, so I tagged them for deletion under CSD G5. However, he subsequently removed it without first clicking the button. As I kept warning him, then removing the notices, he made a personal attack, so I removed it. However, it got restored by an autoconfirmed user, so I tagged the talk page for deletion under CSD G10. However, he removed the tag since he didn't want it to get deleted entirely. I again removed the personal attack. I'm not sure if it got restored or not. I still suspect the IP to be a sock of Janagewen. That IP has to get blocked for 1 year for block evasion. Can you please block the disruptive IP? Thanks. 2600:1:B10D:5596:C8F6:90FC:2883:8BD7 (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Considering this, I don't believe it is Janagewen. Your report has been deemed bogus by a CheckUser, so you take it to me? Sorry, that won't fly. If you want to make a vandalism report, with a selective collection of diffs that really show vandalism (because I for one have a lot of trouble taking stock of all their contribs), please take it to WP:AIV. Bishonen | talk08:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC).
A matter of concern
I just read the thread on my user talk page left by Drinkandtype and it is a very depressing situation. I have to admit that I had doubts about this problem for a long time--I even confronted the TheGracefulSlick with those concerns a while back, but I ended up giving him the benefit of the doubt. Obviously, I cannot overlook the fact that we have often collaborated and are both dedicated to the cause of writing about 60s music. And, I recognize that he has helped me on may occasions--for that I am deeply grateful. But, I just cannot understand what would have caused him to do something like this (if it is so)--and, yes it made me feel victimized--but I guess that all of us here have experienced it at times. But, I also feel that he should have a chance to be rehabilitated at Wikipedia, and that we should try to play a supportive role if he wishes to return, provided that he can rise above the mistakes of the past. We should not forget that he has done a lot of good things, and I believe that he has redeeming virtues. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Bishonen, I was wondering if you could help me keep an eye on the Afd page, in the event the a rouge editor tries to nominate one of TheGracefulSlick's articles for Afd. Since, TGS's ability to go there to protect himself is limited right now, our help could give him some peace of mind. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Sitush is pushing his own version for article Kachwaha, and when I reverted him asking some very valid questions, then rather than responding to me, he approached you and got me banned. I was given no warning from any admin and was banned straight away. I appeal you to remove my topic ban on Kachwaha article as the present article is completely misleading from head to toe. Sitush and I can reach consensus with an admin's intervention like yours.
Now let me repeat my objections to the article. The very lead of the article says: The Kachwaha are a caste group with origins in India. Traditionally they were peasants involved in agriculture but in the 20th century they began to make claims of being a Rajput clan. Some families within the caste did rule a number of kingdoms and princely states, such as Alwar, Amber (later called Jaipur) and Maihar. Now instead of using word Rajput clan, the article's lead use word "caste group". Then it says that they were peasants who started claiming themselves as a Rajput clan in 20th century. We definitely need sources for this lead. Which source says all this and what exactly do they say? Sitush should present full quotations for all this stuff. It seems Sitush has less idea of India and its social groups, but he still behaves intolerant towards edits of other editors. In India, its a well-etablished fact that Kachwaha is an undisputed Rajput clan. Its only here that you get to see such baseless imaginary stuff. Sources like [Britannica (link), (1) this, (2) this, (3) this, (4) this, (5) this, (6) this, (7) this, (8) this find no place in the article. But a lot of unsourced content and sourced content (which is about 'Kushwaha', not Kachwaha) gets too much support from Sitush. The article needs your intervention sir. Kindly un-ban me and join us in our discussion at Talk:Kachwaha. -TalgoKL (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, little Muffled, theoretically TalgoKL shouldn't be discussing content issues, even here, but I do appreciate that it's difficult to appeal the ban without straying into them. I'll accept pretty much anything he feels necessary to say here on my page, as part of an appeal (not anywhere else, though). TalgoKL, you don't have to revert yourself here, and I'll answer you fully later. I have to go out now. Bishonen | talk11:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC).
The issue has been discussed extensively in the past and TalgoKL needs to read the talk pages of that article and its related caste articles. They need to understand that we have to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, that true academic sources will always trump newspapers, Britannica etc, and that there are many sources for caste-related matters that have long been determined to be unreliable for use on Wikipedia. A good start would be to familiarise themselves with the information at WP:RS, WP:HISTRS and User:Sitush/Common#CasteSources, as well as reviewing the past discussions. An excellent tip - in my humble opinion - is NOT to search for your POV when using Google etc. That will very often produce a mostly one-sided result. In this instance, just search for kachwaha etc and read widely, not narrowly. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
TalgoKL, your reverts on Kachwaha were very concerning. Your attitude to reliable sources, when Sitush cited a couple of very good ones on the talkpage, was more concerning still: "You talk about sources. Oh come on! There can be errors in any source and also in what you consider most reliable sources. You name one-two such source and I can name tens of such sources which says Kachwaha is an undisputed Rajput clan and infact one of the oldest ruling Rajput clans.". It's as if you think all sources are equal, and all you need to offer to put your preferred content into the article is many sources, no matter their quality. Mentioning "tens" of sources (really, tens?) you didn't name even one, giving nobody an opening for evaluating what you were talking about. Now that you have provided a set of links to Google books as sources above, I've tried checking them out, but I can't view most of them. Google books shows different things to different people, depending on their location; I see some of the pages you see, but by no means all. I do recognize the name of Horace Arthur Rosehere, though — a writer of the British Raj era. Those aren't considered reliable. Frankly, it looks to me as if, rather than look for up-to-date academic sources, you have typed what you hope to find ("kachwaha rajputs") into the Google Books search engine, and then you paste the books you find uncritically into your appeal above, regardless of how old they are. But it's difficult for me to evaluate them all; @Sitush: do you have any more specific comment on TalgoKL's Google Book links, beyond what you say above?
I know caste is a difficult area, TalgoKL, but for a neutral article, it's all the more important to use reliable sources, and not least to listen to good advice from experienced editors, which you were actually given on both your own talkpage and at Talk:Kachwaha — but you blew it off. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS, WP:HISTRS, and with Sitush's guide to caste sources. Note that the last-mentioned isn't Sitush's opinions about caste sources; it's a compilation of Wikipedia consensus on them, with links to the relevant discussions, so that you can check for yourself. If you read those, and give me some reason to believe you have accepted Wikipedia's consensus about sourcing, I'll consider shortening your three-month ban to one month. But without that, I won't, sorry. Bishonen | talk19:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC).
Would it be acceptable for me to insert numbers against each of TalgoKL's links above? It would make it easier for me to comment. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Theoretically, that's not for me to say, but I can't see Talgo objecting to a thing like that, since it will be helpful for both you, me, and him. Do it, and if he does object, we'll just have to remove the numbers. Bishonen | talk20:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC).
I can only see a snippet view, the author is unknown to me and so, too, is the publisher. We don't use snippet views, by the way: there are too many variables related to context etc. An unknown author and publisher rings alarm bells, especially when, as is the case here, I am thus far unable to find anyone citing them.
This is H. A. Rose, a source from the Raj era. We do not use Raj sources - see the links previously given re RS, HISTRS etc.
This is Tyagi, who mirrors Wikipedia content without attribution. He is, indeed, the original reason why people began investigating whether we should rely on works published by Gyan Publishers at all - see User:Sitush/Common#Gyan.
Journal of the Asiatic Society from the Raj period - restated the sort of thing said by people like Rose, H. H. Risley, James Tod etc. Now considered to be unreliable, per the same links noted for (2). (And in any event, the bit that is linked is already in the article but with support from modern academic sources)
Again, it is Raj stuff
This is fine - Indiana University Press etc. However, it looks like a passing mention and in any case it says nothing more than we already say in the article, eg: "The Kachwaha Rajputs who rule in Jaipur ..."
B. S. Nijjar is unreliable. It has been discussed somewhere in the past. He is something of a pseudo-historian when it comes to matters relating to the Jats, which is the primary purpose of his book.
Source is fine. I am not sure that it adds anything to what we already say, though.
Thank you very much, Sitush. It looks like my impression of randomness in Talgo's choice of these sources was pretty accurate, then: a couple of good but not highly relevant sources, several Raj sources, a Wikipedia mirror, etc. Well, there you are, User:TalgoKL. Do please, as Sitush suggests, take a look at User:Sitush/Common#GBooks, and also this essay, which explains more in detail the problems which arise when using Google Books. Bishonen | talk21:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC).
@ Sitush
Dear Sitush, kindly bring some light on this source as well. Secondly I have asked you to provide full quotations from the cited references which support the present version of the article, be it lead or the following sections.
I mean which source says that Kachwahas started claiming of being a Rajput clan in 20th century and what exactly do they say? And why are we mixing two different communities 'Kachwaha' and 'Kushwaha'? Kushwaha is an artificial term coined by backward Koeri community during the British period under sanskritisation to claim their upper status with mythological origins. This community is by no means related to Kachwaha. So all the sourced content in 'Classification' section is irrelevant to the article.
I found some objectionable content in 'Rulers' section as well. I want to quote it here : A Kachwaha family ruled at Amber, which later became known as the Jaipur State, and this branch is sometimes referred to as being Rajput. Well, its not sometimes. Kachwahas of Amber have always been considered Rajputs. If you think its 'sometimes', then we need sources for that as well. I have one more point. Amber based Kachwahas' matrimonial relations with other notable Rajput states should also be taken into consideration. For instance, Bharmal Kachwaha's mother was Rani Apoorva Devi, who hailed from royal Rajput family of Bikaner state. They have always married with other Rajput royal houses only. It should be noted that royal families Rajput states never gave their daughters to other communities which are lower in status. Bharmal's daughter Jodha Bai is largely regarded as the first Rajput bride of Mughals.
@ Bishonen
Its very unfortunate if we are not using Raj sources. British ruled India for some 200 years and their sources can be very informative. And by not using Raj sources, we actually restrict constructive expansion of wiki articles, I believe. -TalgoKL (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
TalgoKL: Bishonen, in a show of leniency, allowed you to discuss this in the context of an appeal. Now you are just indulging in the same behavior that got you the topic ban. Any further such comments will likely result in a block and/or an extension of your topic ban. —SpacemanSpiff06:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, thank you, Space. Please don't respond, Sitush. TalgoKL, none of the above gives me any reason to shorten your topic ban. You can see here where your next level of appeal is. We're done here. Bishonen | talk06:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC).
@ SpacemanSpiff
Normal discussion was going on here. I dont know what has offended you that you have come up with such a harsh warning.
I'm sorry to hear it, TalgoKL. I had hoped you would edit some other parts of Wikipedia while your topic ban lasted. It's quite a narrow ban — only from Kachwaha and related pages. I'd recommend you to do some editing in other areas, that you feel less strongly about, if only to become more familiar with Wikipedia's customs and principles. If you simply stay away for three months and then resume the same kind of editing on and around the Kachwaha page, I predict you'll soon be in trouble again. At least, I hope you'll use the time off to study the guidelines and policies that we keep linking you to. Good luck. Bishonen | talk21:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC).
[113] Not to toot my own horn, but I did "crack" the antisemitic "code" about 20 minutes before TenOfAllTrades did. The timing and the quoting of a different bible translation means it was definitely independent (i.e., TenOfAllTrades didn't simply read my comment and expand on it, because they consulted a different external source), but if Nazi-hunting and New Testament code-cracking get one props on Wikipedia, I want my due. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Little Hijiri first, and get major Bishzilla props! Feel free raid 'Zilla lavish fridge as reward! However TenoAllTrades still get props for an ANI post so clear and pedagogical that even little Bishonen understood it. Not easy, that! bishzillaROARR!!23:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC).
Oh, of course. TOAT deserves credit for being clearer than I was in their elaboration of the whole thing. The fact that their comment was significantly longer than mine but was still apparently read and understood by more people is clear evidence of that, especially when long comments, even ones that are only long because they are trying to provide a clear and detailed analysis of a problem, don't generally get read by the ANI peanut gallery affirms that. I have my personal fondness for Wagner's music and my feeling that popular culture disproportionately associates him with what happened in Germany decades after his death, while whitewashing the role the Christian Bible played in the whole affair, to blame for my not elaborating on the Wagner connection as well as TOAT did. (Wagner was an antisemite, but so was Martin Luther, and the latter's brand of antisemitism almost certainly had more influence on the Nazis and German society as a whole than the former. Indeed, Wagner's brand of antisemitism apparently said that Jews were tainting German culture by maintaining their own traditions, and said that they should assimilate with the broader culture; this would have run counter to the Nazi position.) The fact that TOAT's bible apparently changed "the Jews" to "the Jewish leaders" is evidence enough that popular culture has been trying for the past seventy years to give the Gospel of John a free pass for the role it played in the antisemitic culture of premodern Europe. (Again, though, TOAT deserves credit for seeing through that.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Yes, a demented version of a Langdon hunt — simultaneously childish and horrifying. I'm not sure whether to be more sad that people are being duped into believing this stuff or appalled that people actually advocate genocide in the United States in 2016. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Agritravlr
Hi Bishonen. I had User:Agritravlr on my watchlist for no-free image reasons and it popped up again today. It appears to be a talk page post intended for Talk:Ukrainian Canadians accidentally added by Agritravlr by mistake. Adritravlr hasn't edited since December 2015 and their only two edits were to their user page, so I am wondering id this should be left as is, blanked, or taken to MfD. For reference, the use of infoboxes like the one shown has been deprecated by RfC from nationality, etc. articles, so I don't see a future use for this at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure what's best either, but the simple way is to blank the userpage and leave the talkpage. Done. Obviously the new user was kind of floundering about. Bishonen | talk10:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC).
Thanks, John from Idegon. I did yank tpa before I saw your post, but, in my bureaucratic way, I have actually re-removed the content they removed, including the block notice. It's only declined unblock requests that they're not allowed to remove, see WP:REMOVED. Somehow I'd be surprised if they return after a week, so haven't bothered to extend the block. I mean, I'm sure you know what they can do instead. Bishonen | talk17:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC).
Certainly. I reverted you because you restored your personal attacks and harassment of TheGracefulSlick on Floquenbeam's page after being warned. And my edit summary referred to your edit summary, which ridiculously called User:NorthBySouthBaranof "probably a TGS sock". If you are going to throw out accusations so utterly at random, you'll have to expect to be reverted and sometimes, as now, blocked. Bishonen | talk22:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC).
Talk page protection
Is it possible for you to protect Garagepunk66's talk page from unverified users? He has had some recent trouble with IPs (CrazyAces most likely) threatening to have him and me blocked, while accusing him of sockpuppetry. The IP is even reading through our conversations, which is evident by a recent message he sent on another address. Garagepunk is a great person so I would appreciate if you help him out because, like me, he just wants to write without anyone bothering him with petty indifferences.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I can only see one IP edit on GP's page that's at all recent (plus one from a sock account). I'd be glad to semi the page on request, nevertheless, but it ought to be his request, not yours. I've no way of being sure he wants it, especially with the IP editing so modest. Tell you what, though, if GP wants it without having to wait overnight, he'd better make the request on WP:RFPP. I'm going to bed in a few minutes. Bishonen | talk22:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC).
I'll disregard the previous absurd remark by the unsigned editor, but, I was coming to this thread to mention that this same unregistered user just put an unwarranted thread on my talk page. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
If it was one IP, we'd be lucky, Garagepunk66! I've blocked the most obvious range, but I have no illusions that that'll do much. Widr has semiprotected your page briefly, but that'll expire in just a few minutes now, so I'll extend it to a month. OK? I've removed the remark from the IP above, because block evasion isn't welcome here. Bishonen | talk16:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC).
Thanks, Ever. I've responded on the AN talkpage [sic] — I hope people leave it up for a while, even though misplaced, because I'm damned if I'll go chasing after these shifting IPs to put block notices on their talkpages. Also I've blocked the 71.222.xx range (very small range) as well as 67.5.243.74 for a week, and revdel'd a couple of their edit summaries, that had the driver's name in them. Of course it's preferable not to have to semi the article talkpage, but if it comes to that, I will. Bishonen | talk16:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC).
Hi B, re: this edit, I reverted the change (and posted a sternly-worded edit summary when I did, without knowing that you had added the DOB.) I'm curious if there was already a source for it that I'm missing? If so, I'll self-revert. Thanks and sorry for the hassle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
(This is Hijiri88, by the way. Posting this logged out because I'm pretty sure he's monitoring my logged-in edits. I probably should have removed his comment while logged out as well, but what can you do.)
Thank you for the notification. Sort of important for editors new to the area. I was informally informed about it, had to look it up, and was wondering why I didn't get a notification. Otr500 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen, I seem to have annoyed an IP hopper. Would you please semi User:Jbhunley. If there is an easy way to do it for the whole User:Jbhunley/ tree that would be even better since they went after many pages. If you have to do it manually though, do not bother with it. Thank you! JbhTalk01:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I've semi'd your userpage indefinitely, Jbhunley — it hardly seems likely an IP would ever have any business editing it. But this is very annoying... I did mass protect my own pages about a year ago, when I had a determined personal harasser. But I can't remember how. Anybody? @Writ Keeper, MusikAnimal, and Materialscientist:? Hehe, I love the tilt, but it's getting a bit long — maybe I should archive. Some day, you know. Bishonen | talk15:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC).
And there we are. Thanks very much, all. Writty, I was pretty sure it was your script, I think you may actually have written it because I needed it. (You're such a good guy. Please run for ArbCom!) I just didn't remember how to use it. I wonder if this brilliant note I've made on my page will help next time. Unlikely, I suppose. Bishonen | talk19:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC).
Really? I see "P-Batch" and "D-batch", both admin functions so yes, the tab would only be visible at all for admins. Special:PrefixIndex is the primary use-case for these features. If you don't see them, then this must be a bug... :( Could one of you, Writ Keeper perhaps since you are a developer, take a look at your JS console and see if there are any errors? See WP:JSERROR for those who need instructions — MusikAnimaltalk16:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I asked some other admins on IRC and they said they see the Twinkle menu at Special:PrefixIndex. I tried on both Vector and Monobook. Mass delete/protect are arguably the most powerful admin features, so I really want to figure this out :) Thank you! — MusikAnimaltalk21:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
No errors (only warnings), appears in Vector but not Monobook. Dunno what's different about our monobook vs. yours, though, if you've tried it. Writ Keeper⚇♔01:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
In Monobook, Twinkle options should show up as links along the top, not as a dropdown menu (sorry I thought maybe this was implied). So next to "special page" you should see "d-batch" and "p-batch" (screenshot). Do you not? — MusikAnimaltalk03:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I see your screenshot, but there's nothing there next to "special page" in my Monobook. (Vector? Who uses Vector?) Except "semiprotect all", which would be Writty's script. Bishonen | talk 03:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC). P.S. Could that possibly be the problem? That the Twinkle links are sort of masked by "semiprotect all"? Do you want to see a screenshot, MusikAnimal? I could e-mail it to you. Bishonen | talk10:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC).
Could you add the following code to your common.js and see if the tab shows up on Special:PrefixIndex/User:Bishonen? mw.loader.using(['ext.gadget.Twinkle'], function() { if (mw.config.get( 'wgCanonicalSpecialPageName' ) === 'Prefixindex') {Twinkle.addPortletLink( Twinkle.batchprotect.callback, "P-batch", "tw-pbatch", "Protect pages linked from this page" );}}); - NQ(talk)11:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Add that code? [Dubiously:] I suppose I could. OK, done. No, it doesn't make any difference. Thank you for trying, little NQ. Should I remove it again? Bishonen | talk15:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC).
yes please, wouldn't want it to screw anything up. It worked for me though, so not sure what's wrong. 84 (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
(←) I am so lost... I set my personal JS to be the same as yours, Bishonen, and I still see the links (the P-batch link I see twice, because of NQ's script that you added). I'm going to guess there's a conflicting gadget or something. Let's take this to the next level, if you don't mind... I've temporarily given you sysop rights on testwiki. At your convenience, please go to testwiki:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and enable "Twinkle debug version", then browse to testwiki:Special:Prefixindex and let me know if you see the links. Thanks so much for your help! I worry this isn't working for a lot of people — MusikAnimaltalk19:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I got as far as enabling "Twinkle debug version", but then when I click on your testwiki:Special:Prefixindex link, I only get a generic page, without any pages listed on it. Unsurprisingly, I didn't see any Twinkle links, because there was nothing there for them to refer to (no pages to batch protect or similar). So I tried looking for pages with your name as the prefix — obviously, I myself don't have anything in my userspace on that wiki — and got a little list. With still no Twinkle links. I've e-mailed you a screenshot of what I see.
And you have replied — I didn't realize I was using Vector on the testwiki, so I looked for the links to the right of "Special page"... sigh... OK, hang on while I just change the skin. Bishonen | talk20:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC).
Yes, it works in Monobook too on the test wiki, I see the links where I expect them. But I can't do the same in my usual prefs, can I? There's no Twinkle debug version there. So, are you going to fix it for all of us? I'm really glad this came up, you know. There's some more Twinkle links I've never been able to find, that I know other people rejoice in — perhaps those will miraculously turn up, too, once this is fixed ("debugged"). Bishonen | talk20:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC).
Hehe, I love to break rules but the testwiki folks insist sysop powers are for development purposes only. Anyway, yay! We know the issue is not Twinkle by itself :) I'm convinced it must be a conflicting gadget. Could you email me your list of gadgets (take a screenshot, I guess)? What other Twinkle options are missing for you?Also, I did some SQL queries about skin usage, and of all the users who have modified some sort of setting (so probably most users who were active at some point, and not throwaway accounts/socks), around 2.1 million use Monobook, ~86,000 use Cologne Blue, ~79,000 use Modern, and 8.9 million use Vector :) Vector is the default these days, so it makes sense it's the most popular — MusikAnimaltalk20:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Haha!! Well that explains it! The Twinkle settings you mysteriously are missing you explicitly have hidden! Wow. Thanks NQ! I'm going to guess Writ Keeper told you to do this, Bishonen? Writ I've just about had enough of you :) — MusikAnimaltalk20:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't think it was Writ, even though there's some overlap with his choices... I think I did it on my own, because I'm pretty clever, you know.. full of technical initiative! Can I be a developer, please? Peering into the past, I think the line of links got too long and the ones I really wanted disappeared to the right on my tablet, and there was no using them. I'll just unhide the lot, because I can't be arsed to use the damn tablet these days anyway. I like to use Bishzilla's ten-acre desktop monitor, which has lots of room for little links. Sorry I'm so forgetful, Musik. Thank you little NQ! Bishonen | talk22:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC).
Calling a living person/scholar a nut on wikipedia pages, BLP issues?
Hi @Bish: See this. Isn't calling a living person "a nut"/etc, making personal attacks on a living human being, or other defamation of living person(s) on wikipedia pages inappropriate and unacceptable? That is a few weeks old comment, in an article I did not follow nor read in the past. The comment is still live, so just a note of admin clarification / caution may suffice. If inappropriate should it be deleted or stricken off? Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
What a fine idea...to have an image appear to those who edit your talk page. Such a fine first picture too...quite contemplative! MONGO04:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for bright bulb little user. Illumination in murky autumnal home most timely! (Thickest cloudcover ever today.) Hmm. Has another bright idea: how about I add this to carousel too, for a surprise item? I see it's currently being used on the Russian Wiktionary, besides your award. Trying to figure out what the illustrated word can be... no luck. Anybody? Does человекообразность mean Bigfoot? Or Hairy Shakespeare? Bishonen | talk08:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC).
Acording to my dictionary the root word (человекообраз-) means anthropomorphous. With a gendered suffix it is anthropoid. -ност collectivizes a noun so I would say things like Furries would be a good fit. JbhTalk12:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
So the image is supposed to be Shakespeare roleplaying in in furry fandom..? Sure, why not, and I'm glad to see it travel, though it's hardly what User:Penyulap had in mind when he kindly created it on request from Bishzilla. Originally, it represents MONGO as the Hairy Shakespeare of the Woods, warbling his native woodnotes in all those featured and hairy and leafy National Park articles.[116]. Bishonen | talk15:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC).
As is not uncommon, woodland realm has few opportunities for MONGO to edit. Hoping problem rectified soon. Nevertheless those Rooskies need be wary of the potential costs to both limb and eyeball (vodka martini with eyeball garnish my favorite) should they misuse my likeness in a nefarious manner.--MONGO16:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
RexxS is quite the fine technical user person. Thank goodness he's on our side and not that of those dastardly Rooskies.--MONGO16:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Every twelve hours, little MONGO. That's the cleverness of young RexxS. But I only gave him nine pics to alternate between. I wonder if I could put in a few more here? I can see where the image names are, so probably wouldn't need to understand the complexity. What say, RexxS? Would you rather I not mess ignorantly with module? Bishonen | talk10:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC).
Of course, please add more. I tried to write it so that it could be easily updated. You just need to put a comma after each filename except the last one, just like any list. Enjoy --RexxS (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Strong spirits for MONGO on way. Beer chasers too. Will keep MONGO in picture. Mescal will be sent. Only 24 bottles though. MONGO be warm through winter. Drambuie too. All depends on U Boat activity in Atlantic. Keep MONGO up to date on this. Irondome (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
For future reference, would ANI be a better venue for matters like this? Since it was related to ARBAP2, I thought AE was the only venue I could take that.
And I agree, the warning to report time gap was not ideal. But the disruption was blatant and repeated so I thought it needed addressing. Between the edit notices and the edit summaries by reverters and the user themself, it seemed that they knew about the DS and ignored them.
Just wondering what the ideal way to handle such things would be for the future (esp. as we get closer to the election in the USA). Cheers! EvergreenFir(talk)12:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, EvergreenFir. Yes, IMO either ANI or AN3 would have been better in this case. There was ongoing disruption, so it was urgent. Discretionary sanctions are more for persistent problems, and they only start to "count", so to speak, after a user has been alerted to them. The user had been persistent enough, but mainly before your alert, so s/he wasn't ready to be sanctioned per DS. Giving the user a DS alert was a good idea, but there was nothing preventing you from then using other venues. DS are meant to make it easier, not harder, to stem disruption in sensitive areas. (The cumbersome way they're sometimes used can make one wonder, I know.) They should never prevent anybody from using other venues, or approaching an admin individually, or whatever. As for the ideal way for the future: well, considering these interesting times, why not hand out a few DS alerts for American politics preemptively, where you think they may do some good? (Not a whole shower, as that might be frowned on.) They make it easier for admins to act down the line. The alerts are not accusations — you see where it says "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date", bolding in original — and people don't really have any reason to take umbrage at them. Especially not if you make a point of templating folk on different sides of the, uh, great divide. Bishonen | talk15:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC).
That makes sense. I was always a bit unclear if you had to go to AE to get an active sanction addressed or not. I'll go to ANI or AN3 (the latter of which can be a bit slow too) in the future. I appreciate you explaining too. That does help. :) EvergreenFir(talk)16:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
It's funny, Mandruss, but I had originally written a parenthetic "(though they do)" to EF, but I thought "too many parentheses, you talk too much, Bishonen" and zapped it. Indeed they will. I nearly fainted when a new user actually thanked me for his DS alert, in the section "Sanction notification" above: "I was wondering why I didn't get a notification". Very nice. Bishonen | talk17:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Remember that time- can't find it off the top of my head- where, for a particularly tendentious editor, it said "This does imply misconduct regarding your own conduct." Classic! MuffledPocketed17:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at the user page which you deleted, User: Musiclov, then go to the page that user was editing a lot, and check the edit history. The page was meant to be a redirect, where an admin User: Seraphimblade found this article, put it back to a redirect, then the two users, Musiclov and it's sock puppeteer, put it back to the promotional page it was. this happeed about 3 times, so i just marked it for deletion for promotion. Please block Musiclov and it's sock-puppeteer, Wikiartiste. Adotchar (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, I sent in a request for rollback about a week ago, which was denied, and it was before I really started being entirely active. So, if I were to apply again now, do you think I'd make it? I really need it for STiki. I'm currently using Snuggle and it isn't working really well. Adotchar (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I've blocked both accounts indefinitely. They're pretty obviously one person, but I don't think that's worth making an SPI song and dance about. Thanks for your good work, Adotchar. Hmmm, I don't know much about why or when rollback is or isn't granted. Could you link me to your request and the denial, please? Bishonen | talk17:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC).
I need some help, please. I used to do NPP, until an admin, Kudpung, told me to stop. So I moved to working on Snuggle for recent changes patrol. And since recent changes are changes to pages, he is now really angry at me for some reason, and I haven't been doing anything wrong. Please help, link is here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Adotchar#NPP_3
Adotchar, that's above my paygrade, sorry. I don't understand it. Again, where did you request rollback and what was the reason given for denying it? And RexxS, yeah, I deleted it. It would surprise me if the individual doesn't have a copy, since it's been on both the userpages and is as you say in the history of Saptaparna Chakraborty. Not sure how you mean they could work on it, though. You know both the accounts have been indeffed? Bishonen | talk11:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC).
Yer, I saw they were indeffed. I just hoped that their next sock could quietly work on the article in user space without disturbing anybody else :D
@Adotchar: I have great respect for Kudpung, and his expertise includes the fields of New Page and Recent Changes patrol, so I'd take his advice seriously. My advice to you is not to be in a hurry. Take your time to learn what folks like Kudpung are explaining to you. Expect to spend a month or more using the simple tools or making manual edits to combat vandalism. You have made a good start, spotting Wikiartiste et al, and bringing your evidence to a sympathetic admin like 'Shonen for action. Keep up the good work and you'll be able to show the admins at WP:PERM a history of good judgement. That's what they are looking for in granting permissions. I hope it turns out well for you the next time you ask. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
BOOOOOOO! Happy Halloween!!!
Happiest of Halloweens (and more candy) to all the Bishes, 'Zillas, 'Pods, Darwinesques, Little Stupids, and the entire beloved Bisheria! ---little key in old creepy spoooky disguise
Hey there, it's probably from Bishzilla stomping around, but your table of contents isn't hanging on all of its nails anymore. Do you need me to give you some? :p—cyber>powerTrick or Treat:Offline01:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey! 180° is all very well, let 'em stand on their heads, but it's covering up my "blocked by Jimbo" barnstar! Please fix! (Oh, the edit notice has a bison now. Well majestic!) Bishonen | talk09:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC).
I've gotten a lot less tolerant of "minor spelling fixes" that aren't, particularly in a silly season-related article. You're obviously a kinder, more forgiving person, probably because Bishzilla takes care of the mean stuff. Acroterion(talk)17:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
That's it. Though I have my moments of intolerance, too. I just this minute blocked Jewwy Seinfeld, reported at AIV, that the other admin had rejected for being at the wrong noticeboard. Fuck that, just block, you know? Bishonen | talk17:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC).
Uh? You don't think I was sorting it out properly myself, RexxS, without any need to involve the Christian god or crusaders? IMO the user "Jewwy Seinfeldt" needed blocking indefinitely on the name alone, regardless of what noticeboard they had been taken to. Nothing to worry god with. Bishonen | talk20:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC).
—Yeah.. I'm not American, though, nor much of a masochist. I find a good deal of it so strange as to be incomprehensible. Mainly, I can only manage the low-hanging fruit, such as this. Bishonen | talk09:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC).
N sahi
@Bish: Have a look at this and this, plus this edit history. Such incivility against @Joshua Jonathan. The disruption by @N sahi is high. Already identified to be a sock, @N sahi account blocked for 2 weeks and other named @Nrityam indef. @N sahi account needs a watch if the user returns. Sorry @JJ, but know you are valued and admired despite the generous dose of abusive words and nonsense thrown at you, every now and then. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Only two weeks for that character? I've asked Bbb23 about it, and also about the SPI page against you which one of their page moves created. It should be deleted IMO. Bishonen | talk05:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC).
@Bish: Prolly @Bbb23 was just looking at the SPI case, and not the behavioral/PA/disruption/etc. I am clueless about the relevant guidelines on this, but 2 week block for 1st time SPI offenders may be the proportionate/appropriate thing to do. @Bbb23 did the right thing. Indeed, @N sahi is not just an SPI character. Incivility aside, that user disrupted the due SPI process by attempting to delete evidence and move the SPI case file name. Someone has deleted all that now. @JJ, others and I have a similar mess to wade through, recheck and clean up in Buddhism, Hinduism space articles that '@N sahi' socks edited over the last few months. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
It's true. The nature photo in the edit notice — I hope you've noticed them — only changes when nobody's looking, too. Bishonen | talk15:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC).
I'll watchlist them, MjolnirPants. But it could indeed. I'd think many, many people might register an account to make that edit. Have you thought of welcoming them? Bishonen | talk10:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC).
I need an interaction ban. Another editor has proposed a split for the Garage rock article and there is a discussion on the talk page there, and TheGracefulSlick has injected comments there that I do not take to be in good faith. He has also made borderline deletionist comments and gotton into unnecessary circumlocutions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back from the Grave, Volumes 1 and 2 (CD). I feel that his comments in both threads should be redacted. While normally he would be entitled to say whatever he wants, I feel that, based on the situation with ALongStay, he should recuse himself of any negative commentary of my work in such forums. I'm sorry it has come to this, but things have gotten a lot worse between use in the last two weeks. I have given him a chance, and he keeps trying to undermine me. This is difficult because I acknowledge some kind things in the past. I don't know why he is doing this. I am asking for an interaction ban. I do not want him to be involved in any of the discussions around my work, whether it be Afd's, splits, etc. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Garagepunk66. I'm very sorry to see you're upset. I get that impression not only from the message above in itself, but also from the fact that you had to edit my page 13 times to leave it here. Please stay cool. My suggestion would be for you to walk away, at least for a while. I can't say that I see any obvious signs that TheGracefulSlick is posting in bad faith in those discussions. In any case, an interaction ban is not something that a single admin can place; you'd have to ask for it on AN or ANI. But please take a breath before you do, and think about it. I don't myself think you'd have much chance of getting what you ask for, especially as you and TGS have very similar editing interests, and can't realistically be expected to avoid each other. Bishonen | talk19:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC).
Bishonen in light of this, I must ask, would it be a good idea to ask for an article ban on Garagepunk until the split we are forming is complete? I want this transition to be smooth and he has shown some concerning signs that will muddy the process. Normally, I would consider him a great asset; however, this is more of a formatting and policy issue, something he hardly concerns himself with. He has already said he does not trust four capable users to handle the situation and that we will tear it to pieces [118][119]. Another user at the discussion also pointed out Garagepunk's language of apparent ownership and total lack of faith in Ilovetopaint, an editor who practically specializes in genre articles [120]. Garagepunk obviously denied ownership, but was still against any of the solutions (which used clear rationale) and still used comments that hinted at ownership because of his "hard work"[121]. His attempt at an interaction ban is another sign he is showing no faith in other users. Now, I associate with him more than any other user, so this is difficult to consider, but I may need to do the article can be split appropriately. What is your opinion?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Article ban? Are you out of your mind? We had only heard from a few people at that point, some of whose prescriptions are not in the best interests of the article--and I have a right to defend the article against mindless truncation. You of all people who watched me sweat and labor to build that article--how dare you say that. I don't own the article, but I've earned the right to sit at the decision making and crafting table you want to expel me from. Ilovetopaint goes around putting silly templates on all the GA articles accusing them of "synthesis" and the like--his methods are more often disruptive than helpful (but I admit he did a great job on the Good Vibrations article). He is over-obsessed with certain rules and guidelines to the point of fanatic fundamentalism, but misses the whole principle of why they are there. He often misunderstands the topics at hand and believes in copying from the source (never more than one source) ad verbatim, which is problematic. He does not often see the necessity of viewing things in context. I'll have to admit that his harsh methods have challenged me to be a better editor--and I do always consider his point of view when he brings it up. He has a right to his opinions, but after I pushed hard to help get the whole big article to GA, I have a right to speak and contribute too. I will be a team player and work with everyone including him. No one has a monopoly on truth. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There's no way an editor who wrote more than 80% of a GA article is going to be banned from the article unless they repeatedly violate all kinds of policies over a very long period of time. There's also no way that someone who wrote more than 80% of a GA article is going to be excluded from the process of deciding, trimming, altering, or splitting it by editors who have contributed nothing whatsoever to the article. And I agree with Garagepunk66 that someone who slaps a giant handful of driveby tagbombs on an article does not really sound like someone who should be in charge of tearing that article apart. In terms of the AfD, I suggest to Garagepunk66 that he retain copies of those articles on user subpages so that if they get deleted but he has a worthwhile idea for the text he can implement his plans from the copies. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick and Garagepunk66, there will be no article bans nor interaction bans, and I hope you can both remind yourselves of your good relationship before this happened and reach out to each other. Please meditate a little on that before you post again. Bishonen | talk11:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC).
There is no one I would more want to reach out to. But, I have understandable concerns right now. I am battling to keep an article I worked hard to help bring up to GA from getting torn to pieces. Garagepunk66 (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Kevin. (And thank you for recusing from clerking the request.) I probably won't comment, as the circumstances are pretty simple and the arbs ought to be able to sort them out without me. Bishonen | talk23:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC).
We are number one.
That was not an A7, as it was about a song. Moreover, there was a credible assertion of significance. Either one of those would have invalidated A7, let alone both. Adam9007 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I should have said A9, sorry. I don't think much of the credible assertion of significance — are you referring to the song having "gone viral", or being created for LazyTown? The second is the best, IMO, but not really good. But I'll think about it, I have to go to bed now. Thanks for getting in touch. Bishonen | talk23:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC).
I don't think that's a legitimate claim of significance, and I don't recall seeing it accepted as such, because it's far to easy to say, about anything. Sorry, you'd better take it to Deletion review. Bishonen | talk03:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC).
The discussion on my talk page
Maybe the complaint could have been more diplomatically worded. The word "justiciable" has been in the news recently. I would say that ANI is the appropriate venue to deal with this:
AstroLynx, who is an Islamic scholar, claimed that there were no contemporary records of where the Farewell Pilgrimage took place, thus ensuring that the commenters at the RfC would come to the wrong conclusion.[122]
Knowing the caption was incorrect he argued that it was "concise and to the point".[123]
He made a personal attack while misrepresenting the source, which said the picture could remotely be what he claimed if the author were making an abstruse point about Sunni theology but emphasised that this was simply an illiterate artist trying to make money by painting an illustration which would be pleasing to a shi'ite ruler.[124]
Pushing his POV after being informed that scholars rejected the idea that the picture is of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation.[125]
He made another personal attack with no diffs to support the allegations.[126]
Pushing a source which he says does not say the picture is not of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation while omitting to mention that it does not say that it is Muhammad prohibiting intercalation either.[127]
Deliberately misrepresenting the argument. The picture was painted 400 years after al - Biruni wrote his book and nobody had argued that the book was sectarian.[128]
Made the accusation that a participant had been falsifying other editors' comments, is dishonest, and accuses "editors of being biased, opinionated and obstinate". There are no diffs - I read the discussion and the words are not there.[130]
For nine years there has been a consensus that the picture is irrelevant. AstroLynx and NeilN tag team to add it back every time other editors implement the consensus. In a final act of cynicism they have protected the article so that only they can make changes. Here are their reverts:
AstroLynx
2008 April 17, June 9. 2009 July 20, Dec. 7. 2010 April 14, 24, June 14, Aug.14, Nov. 16, Dec. 13. 2011 Jan. 25, June 30 (x2), July 27, 28, Aug. 25, Sept. 5, 9 (x3), Oct. 11, 14 (x2), 17, 18 (x2), 31, Dec. 9. 2012 Jan. 9, 23, Mar. 12, July 24, Aug. 20, Sept. 12, Oct. 19, 30, Nov. 12, 30, Dec. 17. 2013 Jan. 22. 2014 July 28, Oct. 15. 2015 Mar. 22, 23, April 13, July 16 (x2), Oct. 14.
NeilN
2009 Oct. 30, Dec. 18. 2010 March 22, April 4, 14, 21, 24, May 21. 2011 April 24, May 1, 13, 27. 2012 July 9, 10. 2013 Nov. 9 (x2). 2014 Jan. 11, March 17, Aug. 20, Sept. 26, Oct. 15 (x2), 24, Nov. 19. 2015 Jan. 21, March 23 (x2), April 9, Sept. 16 (with the patronising edit summary "This again?"), Oct. 6.
NeilN is clearly WP:INVOLVED in this content dispute but every time somebody raises the matter at talk he removes the comment and blocks them. This is abuse of tools.
Discussion on your talkpage..? You don't have a talkpage. Do you see the redlink for "talk" in your signature above? If you expect to discuss with others, and if you have any regard for their convenience, you'll create an account, so as to avoid, for instance now, me having to research my own contribs back in time to find what IP talkpage is in question.
After digging out your original IP, 78.146.221.36, I have realized it's still blocked — a block that you're evading by posting here on my page. Apparently you don't understand a block is for the person, not for a particular account or IP. I must say I'm surprised; surely there wouldn't be much point in blocks if the person could freely jump to another IP and keep on editing? — also you could just as well have posted this message to me on User talk:78.146.221.36 — which is a page you're actually allowed to post on while blocked. Since your block evasion is so pointless, I'll AGF that you did it innocently, and answer your question: yes, take it to ANI if you think there's any chance your complaint will get traction. Whatever account or IP you use to post an ANI complaint, please have the courtesy to provide links in it to this edit, that I blocked you for, and to User talk:78.146.221.36, to give readers a chance to evaluate the situation and your prehistory. They won't appreciate a game of "guess who I am", like the one I had to play to find you. And of course don't take it to ANI, or post anywhere else, until your block has expired! If you do, I'll block your entire IP range.
As for "Maybe the complaint could have been more diplomatically worded" (this complaint), no — it could have been less nonsensically and misleadingly worded — nothing to do with diplomacy. Bishonen | talk18:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) And a quick look at the LTA shows that out of the IP-addresses known to be frequently used by Vote X a whopping 16 IPs are currently blocked, making the post here block evasion many times over. - Tom | Thomas.W talk20:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
That list is probably a fraction of the IPs used. I know I've blocked VxfC at least 50-60 times but haven't added to the list. There's a reason why this editor caused Arbcom to contact the WMF and ask them to look into legal options for these types of cases. --NeilNtalk to me21:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for enlightening me, NeilN and Thomas.W; I didn't know much about that LTA. I don't suppose there's much point, but I've blocked the small range that 78.146.221.36 and 78.146.222.77 have been posting from. Doesn't look like it would do any harm anyway, see [131]. Then, we've all got more than Wikipedia to worry about this morning, even without being Americans (as neither you nor I are). Sigh. I think I'm going to just go back to edit mode and meditate on the cranes. Bishonen | talk11:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC).
A crane that has crashed, just like the world economy is crashing around us today. The only one who is happy about the election outcome is probably George Bush, Jr., since he will now no longer be the least popular president ever in the US....
Hi, Am I supposed to post a response to your post on my talk page here? Please delete and let me know if not. Thanks.
Thanks for getting back to me so soon. I believe that the book may in fact have plagiarized the article, and not the other way around. I thought I might have jumped the gun. Frankly, despite a modest run at the copyright/plagiarism guidelines I was not certain whether or not it was. The book is entitled: The Esoteric Codex: Demigods of Classical Mythology by Brian Reineking.
The portions in question are:
The legend as a whole encapsulates Rome's ideas of itself, its origins and moral values. For modern scholarship, it remains one of the most complex and problematic of all foundation myths, particularly in the manner of Remus's death. Ancient historians had no doubt that Romulus gave his name to the city. Most modern historians believe his name a back-formation from the name Rome; the basis for Remus's name and role remain subjects of ancient and modern speculation. The myth was fully developed into something like an "official", chronological version in the Late Republican and early Imperial era; Roman historians dated the city's foundation to between 758 and 728 BC, and Plutarch reckoned the twins' birth year as 771 BC. A tradition that gave Romulus a distant ancestor in the semi-divine Trojan prince Aeneas was further embellished, and Romulus was made the direct ancestor of Rome's first Imperial dynasty. Possible historical bases for the broad mythological narrative remain unclear and disputed.[3] The image of the she-wolf suckling the divinely fathered twins became an iconic representation of the city and its founding legend, making Romulus and Remus preeminent among the feral children of ancient mythography.--From the article's lead section.
And the entire "Legend in ancient sources" section.
Let me know how I can help.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
CORRECTION: The entire lead of the "Legend in ancient sources.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Still confused. I'm sorry to be so seemingly dense, but should I delete the passages? I'm sorry, I've never dealt with plagiarism before and the wiki help was of no real... well, help.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bish. I was just wondering what is that creature on the top left of the anime girl in your userpage? Btw, is your contents box intentionally tilted cuz I'm kind of worried it's just me. :| (N0n3up (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC))
User:Calliopejen1 has made a subsequent edit since my last one. Therefore, it is impossible to self-revert at this point, and consensus has been reached between us. In addition, I did not violate the 1 revert per day rule, as my last revert was over 1 day ago.
In any event, the article now reads "pro-life" and "pro-choice", and therefore no longer has a biased tinge to it. Prior to my (and Calliopenjen's) edits, it read "anti-abortion" and "abortion-rights", which was extremely biased! If you were going to use the term "abortion-rights", then you would need to use "fetal rights" rather than "anti-abortion".
Please discuss issues on the talk page prior to posting warnings on user's WP pages. Also, please review content and provide a compromise edit (like Calliopenjen did) in order to reach consensus. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
By the way I don't have a preference between pro-life/pro-choice and anti-abortion/abortion-rights. I only think that "pro-abortion" is highly objectionable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad that's resolved. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, you made this change and then partially reverted to it three times in some 18 hours, resoundingly violating the 1RR rule. I don't understand your argument that you didn't do that because it's now more than a day since you perpetrated those edits (which incidentally isn't true). I'm quite baffled by it. Also you shouldn't have reverted at all, even once, as that already violated the other restriction "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Italics in original. Ignoring both the restrictions gave you a strong advantage in attempting to edit war your change into the article, since the other editors felt constrained by 1RR. Admins aren't allowed to both edit an article and act on it in an admin capacity. I don't edit it (as Calliopejen1 and several other admins do) and thus I don't provide any compromise edits. If I did, I wouldn't be able to warn people about violations such as yours in an admin capacity, or sanction them, but now I can. Now that you're aware of the restrictions, please abide by them. Bishonen | talk07:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC).
Just to be clear, I made 1 revert on November 9th, and 1 revert a day later on November 10th. I'm not sure where you're getting 3 reverts on the same day from. I too am quite baffled.
In any event, I am fine with Calliopejen1's version. I have posted on the talk page as you have recommended.
I am not fine with the previous version, which contained blatantly biased language. It used the term 'anti-abortion', which has negative connotations, and 'abortion-rights', which has positive connotations. This would be like using the terms 'anti-life', which has negative connotations, and 'fetal-rights', which has positive connotations. I'm sure you would agree articles must hold a neutral point of view. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I have concerns about the edits of User:BatteryIncluded to the article Myron Ebell. As you know, this article is under general sanctions.
First, this editor has been adding poorly sourced content to support what appears to be a bias against the person in this biography. For example, this was a sloppy summary of the source cited, and was not supported by the source cited. When the edit was removed, the editor reverted with the edit summary "Show references to the effect instead of deleting the existing ones." This is not how Wikipedia:Verifiability works. The editor later added references here from a personal blog.
On the article's talk page this editor made this statement where they lament "Unfortunately, the courts had not caught up yet with Ebell to make him stop -an now under Trump's wing, he likely won't be stopped for a long time." Editing this article seems to be a political mission for this editor, which is certainly contrary to WP:IMPARTIAL. This editor also left a message on my talk page here warning me to "Please keep your Republican tags and opinion." This editor, in my opinion, has demonstrated an inability to remain impartial when editing this article, and a willingness to intimidate other editors who do not edit with his or her bias. Thank you for your attention to this. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Please note that a caution about discretionary sanctions was left on BatteryIncluded's talk page here. I have concerns that this caution was not effective, and that this editor has continued to intimidate other editors of Myron Ebell. After that caution, another editor was called an "idiot" here. Please note that I have expressed my concern about this editor at User talk:Zigzig20s#For your attention. I also looked at Talk:Myron Ebell and found disturbing comments made by BatteryIncluded about other editors:
[136] - "You have no interest in building this encyclopedia, so go FYS and go edit comic books or something with a low scientific threshold".
This editor's sentiment is clearly articulated with this edit, where they state "Now that Trump has been elected, it doesn't much matter ... human civilization on this planet is soon over. I will still call out this sort of BS, but I won't waste any more time on you."
Intimidation of other editors is not helpful to the project, and will certainly not enable the positive, honest and well-sourced growth of the Myron Ebell article.
This editor is well aware of the discretionary sanctions on that article. I appreciate your attention to this. If you feel it would be better to pursue this at ANI, please let me know. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This guy is a total maniac. If I'm not mistaken he is the same troll who used to write about how many Africans died, how many people were massacred.
He is extremely offensive. He's been allowed to manipulate wikipedia all this time to fullfill his negative and hateful agenda.
I promise I'm not going to write anything nasty to him, I just want to make a very short reply. I just want him to know I replied and after this message I'm not going to write to him anymore.
He is also the type of guy who cherry pick sources from written google books and exaggerate his edits and it doesn't if the sources are reliable or unreliable. He will mis-interpret it to his willing direction. He properly used a new ip address again.
I agree with you to a certain extent. Compare my note to RrBurke, who reverted your edit on Polyenetian's page. I've removed Polyenetian's part of the quarrel too, as perhaps you saw. But no, the semiprotection stands, in other words you can't make a reply on the page, short or otherwise. I don't see what good it could do. If you believe he's editing logged out, or has used other accounts before, feel free to tell me about it. I wish you could e-mail me... but IPs can't. Look, I don't understand why you don't create an account. IPs tend to be treated with less respect, as you can see in the way you were reverted. Bishonen | talk13:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC).
Is there anyway to message him privately? right now I simply just want to reply him so I can rebuke all of his garbage exaggerated claims. I want to teach him a lesson but I will not do it on wikipedia however I don't know how how else to contact him. Please show me a way.
I'm afraid I don't know a way. You could try googling the account name and see if a facebook account or something comes up. Wikipedia isn't about "rebuking" — what's the point, if he's all you say? Bishonen | talk13:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC).
How do you stop people who plays by the rules but have such bad intentions in their wiki edits? For example you can see that in his talk page Polyenetian, he insist on editing massacre of about 40,000 Manchus by the Taiping rebels in nanjing however despite reverting his edits multiple times he still continues. A person like who have a agenda to talk about the massacres of other ethnicity, he clearly enjoys it but do you moderator do anything about it? 77.98.238.98 (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with the area myself. The place to appeal to "you moderators" is WP:ANI, but I'm not holding out high hopes. Nationalist warriors are one of Wikipedia's most intractable problems. Bishonen | talk16:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC).
Okay than this will be my last reply. I just don't know why it takes so long to stop someone who clearly have nothing more but evil intentions, why is he is still free to edit whatever he wants? at least remove his ability to edit. And also none of the moderators did anything to remove his repetitive exaggerated evil crap on the cantonese people main page, I had to do it and keep an eye on him and his lying bad intentions edits. 77.98.238.98 (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2016
Hi Bishonen, I reverted an edit of User:Businesstoday123 earlier, and noticed the user has now been blocked. Was the user really posting promotional content? I can't see the user's deleted revisions, but based on the user's prior edit at Wikipedia:Red link, it looked like the user was trying to create an English translation of the French-language Didier Pineau-Valencienne article.—Laoris (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean, @Laoris:. The user's English is about on a par with my French, but I can see it's a version. The deleted contributions were simply an article containing a shorter version of the post at Wikipedia:Red Link, so they wouldn't tell you much. I deleted the article after Businesstoday had blanked it, which is a speedy deletion criterion (WP:G7). I thought it was pretty disruptive to post it at WP:Red Link, thereby blanking a considerable part of the content that was there. And I saw "prominent", "prestigious", "flagship", "great success", "pioneering", "innovative" in there, so I jumped to the conclusion that this was one of the many spammers who insert advertising on random pages. Perhaps I've become jaded... I see now that this might simply have been a newbie who knew a "red link" means an uncreated article and thought that was the place to put an article. Well, sort of. I'll unblock. (They've already been told their username is dodgy and should be changed, I see.) Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. Bishonen | talk20:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for revisiting this. Undoubtedly the translation quality was not up to par (looks like maybe Google Translate, actually) and missing all the refs, etc., so I don't fault you for the assumption. Looks like the original article was pretty long too, so I don't know if anyone would have been willing to bring the translation up to standards. And thanks for all you do around here!—Laoris (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Maslowsneeds
Hi. I noticed that Maslowsneeds is potentially using an IP, geolocated to NY also the residence of Maslowsneeds, to prove again the same point and going as far as calling editors "sadists". I don't know what course of action could be taken from here, but I am sensing NOTHERE right now. Thoughts? Pinging @Doug Weller: for his analysis. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑04:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
That one only has one contribution, but its /64 range (=the same person) has some suggestive ones. IMO this is an occasion for Doug to use his CU tools (or ask another CU if there's something wrong with him doing it). Bishonen | talk10:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC).
I noticed you seem to be online right now. As an uninvolved admin, would you mind closing this thread? It's kind-of descended into a gay bashing lynch mob and, after being told to "drink my semen" [137], I think I'm too involved to close it myself without risking it being reopened. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Nah, I was chillin' in the snow, LavaBaron. (Greatest November snowfall in this city since 1905 when records began. Looked a bit like the Tetons image in my edit notice, if it's still there when you read this.) Apparently another admin has closed it. Bishonen | talk20:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC).
No worries, and sorry to harass you with bookkeeping requests! I haven't seen snow in two years so I'm defo jealous. Have a good night. LavaBaron (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Richard Pombo
Hello - thank you for flagging. I'm new to this and am hoping to make numerous edits to bring a page of a living person into better context. To me, it's obvious a majority of the page was written by someone with a biased viewpoint during a snapshot in time (ca 2006). This is evidenced by some of the wording being written in the present tenseSince many of the links are dead and from those links still available it appears the articles were cherry picked for the worst evidence against the subject, I hope to create a more objective page reflecting both sides of evidence, deleting potentially libelous claims, and later would like to add some of the contributions of the subject.
Also, the structure currently doesn't make much sense. For example, early on, the page summarizes the 1992 - 2004 elections and then moves to "political positions" to "environmental record" to "controversies" and then...to the 2006 election. Upon closer reading, the sections in-between 2004 election and the 2006 election all deal with issues that were more topical in the context of the 2006 election. I would like to move the 2006 election summary up so it follows the 2004 election. Some of the information in "political positions," "environmental record," and "controversies" can be condensed and added within these areas.
The current page spends more time on the 2006 election and "corruption" allegations, but there is no conclusion. And many of the allegations, upon further review, have no source to back it up. The article also fails to mention successes of the subject, awards given, and never states that the subject wasn't formally investigated, no charges were filed, and the subject was never prosecuted.
Thanks for your comments, Rencoyote. Those alerts I gave you don't imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions, as it says at the top. I've moved your note down — please post at the bottom of talkpages. It's the convention, and your posts risk being overlooked if you put them at the top. Bishonen | talk09:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC).
@Rencoyote: Not exactly, no. Did you notice Cahk's alert on your page, telling you there's a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved?[138] The idea is that you should take part in that discussion — that's why he alerted you. The noticeboard is big, but this is the specific discussion. Post below me.
Another thing: I don't know if you have discovered the article's history tab. There you can see User:JzG, who is a very experienced administrator, reverting your edits, with the comment that you had removed a lot of sourced criticism.[139] You have edited nothing but this article on Wikipedia, and in a way that removed criticism of the subject, so you should realize people may think you have a connection with Richard Pombo. If you have, please say so — it's actually better to get that out of the way before posting at the noticeboard. You can declare any connection right here on my page if you like, and I'll tell you what to do next. @JzG:, if this new user goes to ANI, could you perhaps post there as well, or on their page if you prefer? They clearly need guidance. Bishonen | talk18:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC).
@Bishonen: I appreciate the feedback, and yes, I have no problem saying I know Richard Pombo. Have never visited his wiki page until two days ago and was surprised to see it looked like a time capsule from 2006 with a few 2010 additions. So I'd like to see a more balanced portrayal. Am a moderately heavy wikipedia user but have never felt the need to correct anything, because you guys do a nice job. :) Rencoyote (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, bad luck. I see the page has been temporarily protected from editing by new users (of less than four days' tenure). That'll be because of heavy vandalism. You've only been here two days. Hmm. I'll try to wave a magic wand to give you permission to edit the page. Done. Please try again, it should be OK now. However, saying that you know Pombo is a little vague, sorry. Please see WP:COI: is Pombo a family member of yours, a friend, a client, an employer? Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged. You can read all about the niceties of that at WP:COI. Bishonen | talk19:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for the permissions, [[User:Bishonen|. I am a former employee of Richard Pombo. It's been more than a decade since I worked for him. No one else has thought to edit his page, yet any lay reader from whatever perspective or bias would see that the current page is outdated and highly biased. If I don't take this on, who will? I'm happy to leave it to you or others, as long as a thorough review is accomplished. Thank you. Rencoyote (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Rencoyote: I've left a note for you at Talk:Richard Pombo #Importance of sourcing, hopefully giving you a nudge in the direction of what to do next. I would also encourage you to pick up your discussions about Richard Pombo at that talk page. Eventually, your thoughts will be more useful for other editors who will find them there, than in 'Shonen's talk page archive. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
...7 candidates for 7 positions open on ArbCom, with about a day to go before nominations close. Any thoughts about throwing your hat into the ring? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Haha, Writ Keeper! I am Bishonen the Thrower of Hats, look on my works ye mighty and despair! Not a thrower of my own hat, though. I work in the dark, I am Cardinal Mazarin, the whisperer to Louis XIV! My secret goal is to collect the entire little Arbcom in Bishzilla's pocket! Bishonen | talk22:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC).
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi Bishonen.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
Ever since you said that this was among the most obvious topic bans from 1932 politics that you ever gave, I've been wondering what you would do with a user who has violated WP:5P1, WP:5P2, WP:5P3, WP:5P4, been warned for edit warring and who always acts in concert with the user you topic banned User:Maslowsneeds for calling out. I would not continue to push on this question if I did not think more light needed to be shed on this type of behavior. Subtle POV warring is not something I particularly want to be engaged in on Wikipedia. I know I have a point of view and when a copy-editor weeds out a word or two that is inappropriately rhetorical I learn from it. I have never engaged in the sort of behavior that I have seen accepted on some of the political pages this season. While there may be certain words that are taboo on Wikipedia because they don't AGF; User:Maslowsneeds is certainly not alone in thinking the bullying went a bit too far (I get called a "sociopath", for instance, because I corrected a copyright violation (making a politician look bad), a grammar mistake (politically neutral), and undid POV tweaking of the wiki-text leading to a dead link). The 30 word paragraph I'm sending you to here shows a user violating the four pillars mentioned above and yet... User:Snooganssnoogans has never been topic banned to protect Wikipedia from unbalanced editing and adding more heat than light to the political pages. The rushed RfC in which two admins argued to include the user's copyright violation on a BLP page was a very troubling symptom of this. I'm not sure whether I want to bring this to AE where it would quite probably generate more heat than light at a time when everyone is tired of it, shell-shocked, and generally annoyed about having to look backwards. Still, we do need to "protect the wiki". What do you think should be done for AE parity? After all, if a user shows they can edit without incident elsewhere, an indef ban is indefinite and preventive, not punitive. I like fairness and being polite. Thank you for taking the time to think about this. SashiRolls (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SashiRolls. I have thought about it. Considering that you have posted this rather obvious though non-explicit request for an AE sanction against Snooganssnoogans while the user is blocked, and without even naming or pinging them, they're unlikely to respond here even after the block expires. Therefore I have also thought about this comment, which they made about their block and about the provocation they felt you had given them. I agree with User:EdJohnston's block, as the personal attack against you was pretty bad, but I'm also interested in the provocation.
By my somewhat hasty count, you have edited Snooganssnoogans's talkpage 45 times since 7 August, out of a total of about 80 edits on the page in all by other people, everything included, SineBot and so on. That does seem excessive. It doesn't look like your posts are exactly welcome either. Many of them are warning templates and reproaches of various kinds, including this edit, which absurdly stacks up three standards warning templates, {{Template:uw-npa1}}, {{Template:uw-npov1}}, and {{Template:uw-error1}}, and ends with "Hoping these reminders will encourage you to adopt a more helpful collaborative demeanor". That's a completely unrealistic hope for the effect of filling somebody's page with templates (all of them beginning "Hello, I'm SashiRolls", just as if it was a robot talking — your own name appearing four times in a single edit. This displays so little sense of what templates are for (they're primarily for telling new users about policies they're probably not aware of — of course with one template at a time!) that I'm more inclined to ban you from using talkpage templates than to sanction Snoogans. If you put yourself in the other user's place, don't you see that even with good intentions, that kind of robot-talk will have the effect of harassment? (That edit made me think you might be a new user, with a confused belief in the magic power of templates, but I see you've been here almost four years.) And when I see your {{Redflag}} edits,[141][142][143], I start to doubt your intentions, too. This is what I'll do: I'm hereby telling you informally to stop posting on Snoogan's page, and to stop pinging him. (Unless it's really necessary in order to keep him informed. This present complaint would have been a good occasion for a useful ping, but here you didn't even mention him.) Please don't follow him around, either. This is just an informal request, but if you continue to pester Snooganssnoogans, it can be converted to a formal IBAN and logged in the usual way, which I'm guessing you would like less.
So much for the boomerang. As for your complaint against Snooganssnoogans, it's hard to understand. Linking to all the five pillars, one after the other, is no substitute for diffs (remember the "diff culture"?). And mysterious circumlocutions like "the user you topic banned User:Maslowsneeds for calling out" don't help either. You overestimate my detective abilities and my ability to follow your train of thought, especially as I'm not aware of topic banning M for calling out anybody in particular. AFAIK, I topic banned him for persistent disruptive editing and BLP violations. Another example: you mention a "rushed RFC" but don't link to it, and I'm not in the mood for undertaking the necessary research for finding it: what page, what RFC, which two admins? Et cetera. If you feel like submitting a new complaint which is more reader-friendly, I'll consider it. On the other hand, if you compose such a complaint, why not post it on AE? I just noticed on User talk:Snooganssnoogans where you talked about taking him to AE: "Would you like to indicate that you are aware of your errors and intend to correct your behavior or do you need to be taken to AE?"? I'm not AE. You suggest above that you're not sure whether you want to bring it to AE, "where it would quite probably generate more heat than light at a time when everyone is tired of it". You may be right, but the way you have presented your complaint here on my page generates more heat than light as well. I've answered you at some length, so I'll summarize my most important point above to make sure you don't miss it: stop posting on Snooganssnoogans' page, stop pinging him, and stop following him around. Bishonen | talk17:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC).
OK, thanks for your response. Would you like me to ping you when I bring it to AE? Sashirolls very tasty maybe to Bishzilla with enough Wasabe. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I keep an eye on AE in general, no need to ping. Though I suppose it would be appropriate for you to mention that you tried me first. If you'd rather not, I can do it. Bishonen | talk18:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC).
I have been trying to clean up an article I came across reviewing new pages - Uebert Angel. The original author seems to have not only a poor understanding of Wikipedia's content guidelines but a bad case of OWN. I have tried BLPN and 3O and gotten nowhere. My temper is beyond frayed and trying to get anything done is effectivly an edit war. I have tried everything from explaining what I see as the problems, to stubbing the article [144] and explaining every single removal that brought it to a stub on the talk page. To trying a compromise version [145]. Nothing works. I was willing to AGF right up to the point where, after adding a sourced last name it was removed with an edit summary of (His name changed completely so surname ... can not be included) [146] And in the very next edit they added a source using that name in its title[147].
I can not think of where to go from here. Maybe I am wrong about the content issues but whatever the case my communications skills are obviously not up to the task and my objectivity is gone. I do not know if I have fallen into objecting to things 'just because'. Would you please take a look at the article? I really need an outside opinion. Thank you! JbhTalk07:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Well that was interesting. I did my best to clean up the article using the sources cited. Then Fyddlestix queried the Daily News (Harare) source, which claimed to quote Forbes Magazine. Long story short, I eventually found an article that confirmed his suspicions, so I've ended up in a small "edit war" where I've reverted his self-revert (that I requested) in order to restore his preferred version. There's always something new on Wikipedia. So, Jbhunley, see if the efforts of Fyddlestix and me have improved the article in your eyes. Who knows what Simon Mugava is going to think of it? --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Jbhunley, when you can't think where to go, it's always helpful wrt articles under discretionary sanctions (such as blp's) if you post a discretionary sanctions alert on the user's talkpage. The template looks like this: {{subst:alert|topic}}, where you replace the word "topic" with the standard code for the topic in question, such as blp for biography articles. See all topic codes here (scroll down a little). I'm sorry if I sound terse, but I'm frustrated to see all these people including admins coming to the editor's talkpage, and not one has alerted him to the discretionary sanctions. I've posted the alert now. Let's see how it goes after that; I'm hesitating between topic banning him from the article, and speedying it. Don't worry! Bishonen | talk18:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC).
Thank you. I do not think the article is really a speedy candidate. The subject is recognized in academic RS as being a primary example of the new Pentecostal charismatic "prophets" in Africa. I think there is enough out there in high(er) quality sources to demonstrate notability and for a small article but the popular press coverage is, in my opinion, too low quality for controversial claims. JbhTalk19:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right. I decided on a topic ban in any case, since the user simply steamed right ahead with the disruption after my ds alert. Bishonen | talk21:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC).
Already? OK, he gets one for free, as is my usual practice. Few users, especially new users, can get their heads round the concept of a topic ban right away, no matter how insistently it's linked and explained to them. I've warned him. Nice quick catch, Jbhunley! Bishonen | talk23:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC).
BTW, I don't see the term "mega-church", nor "Goodnews church" in any of the sources. (Well, I don't know if his own website may contain them, I'm not so interested in that.) Bishonen | talk23:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC).
(edit conflict) The Good News Church is the new name for Spirit Embassy Ministries. It was changed in 2015 [149]. Good catch, you are correct, it is not a megachurch. I think is is more a huge, spread out congregation but I have not seen it characterized in sources. JbhTalk23:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have a good deal of cynicism. Look at the user's page now; I have trouble discerning what's unwillingness to get it, and what's WP:CIR. There's a bit of both, I guess. Bishonen | talk01:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC).
I have found that in almost all cases where an editor writes something like "I am writing true facts" they lack the sophistication to exercise editorial judgement because "true facts" have no nuance but are rather more potent and absolute than either truth or fact. I see the same thing, lack of nuance, with people who use that phrase in real life as well. Maybe there is a paper there... JbhTalk02:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it, pentecostalism is full of potent and absolute true facts. The user has appealed the 48-hour block. I actually think the way they're parroting the Guide to appealing blocks is a sign of improvement (even though not the sign of a good unblock request): they listened, they clicked on a link. Bishonen | talk09:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC).
Yeah, absolute truths must be very comforting. Anyway I hope against hope he takes the idea of working with others onboard and is sometime able to bring his knowledge to that topic area. It looks like there are several of these prophets in the region who we do not have coverage of. JbhTalk04:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Of absolutely no use, and nobody asked me, but "megachurch" is still a fluctuating neologism. Within the evangelical and young Protestant churches of the USA, where the phenomenon has originated, the term is roughly defined as a congregation of 2,000 or more. Therefore, it isn't really a question of church footprint, but congregation size. Note that the churches themselves quarrel over whether a congregation is "members" or "attending." Some of the churches have vast membership and not so vast attendance, and others have vice versa. (In other words, "megachurch" only has an operative definition, although I feel confident it's in the new edition of the American Heritage Dictionary.) Hithladaeus (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Bishonen. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Just a quick note to say thanks for the help and support over the last few days - very much appreciated. Hope you enjoy the WikiBreak. DrChrissy(talk)19:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey. I just noticed you topic banned this editor here: [151] after I posted a warning template to his talk page. Seems like this editor may be violating that ban by editing Donald Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, as you can see here: [152]. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, the accused has made an (outrageous) rebuttal [153], in which he all but confesses to (proudly) violating those boundaries, going as far as to declare his right to do so! He's also accusing everyone (including the admins) of "stalking" and "witch hunts" and the like.
What bothers me the most in that reply [154] is that he discusses hitting back at members "twice as hard" when he perceives himself to be wronged. I'm not sure he should be hitting any one at all.
It's hard not to see his attempts to rationalize his way around Wikipedia policies. My fear is that he's been getting away with this disruptiveness for too long. There is nothing worse than an experienced editor who gets away with gaming the system. FCS, he's been getting away with edits on articles suggesting Obama is the "founder of ISIS" and is politically jailing conservatives (all lies)!
At the very least, since TTAC is now trying to bully his way out of his ANI with a lot of slander and red-herrings, maybe you could at least revisit the ANI with thoughts about his 'rebuttal' there?[155] After looking into it some more, this seems like a really big problem and it would appear this editor has a long history of WP:GAMING and just barely getting away with it for all this time simply because of (A) luck and (B) because a proper investigation has lacked proper follow-through. Again, if you have time and want to respond to his slippery attempts to talk his way out of it and his perchance for manipulating the ANIs, it might help ensure that he is at least receiving a fair hearing for everyone else involved, most important of all for his victims. I just don't want to see anyone else hurt. Speaking of victims, if you've taken the time to read TTAC's account page, he even lists his "take down" of "opponents". He brags about edit warring and seeing wikipedia in terms of a giant video game with human prey, and his language on his account page referring to his fellow editors as "opponents" and content disputes as "battles" is frightening to say the least. Thank you again for your time and sorry for the vent! Just happy to see you guys on top of this :)
I agree his response isn't much to the point, but I'll leave my fellow admins to evaluate it. You're obviously an experienced editor too; please log in to post on my page. Bishonen | talk09:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC).
I will remove
Hi Bishonen
You're right. I didn't see the pings to Jytdog; I was on a phone while traveling and missed them. While my point stands as a general observation and I know this from my own interactions, I do not want a false statement to stand which would be unfair to Jytdog. I will be removing the point and may add something later today when I can get on my own computer.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC))
I am an experienced editor and in my experience at arbitrations and AE, at least several years ago, editors removed content, an accepted way of dealing with adding new content and removing old content or stuff that was no longer useful. I am happy to redact but can't until tonight when I get on to a computer. If you would like to readd and then redact the point please feel free with my permission. I am going to ask that you assume good faith on all of this. I interrupted a family vacation to comment because I have concerns with yet another editor in danger of being removed. These people/editors are not necessarily advocates for anything, and many are willing to learn if treated with respect and patience. I understand there are those who are not here with the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, but the problem is an inability to destinguish between those who are learning and those who are pushing something. The danger for Wikipedia is that it has become, in some topic areas, a closed community with gatekeepers who, with what I have to assume are the best of intentions, lose patience with new and often highly educated and intelligent editors who do not respond well to those who see themselves as the owners of some articles. Collaboration takes skill and we don't do ourselves any favors by removing rather than teaching. I've done what I can with a phone, and if you don't feel you can make the change I will later tonight. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC))
Thank you. I'd rather not touch your texts; I feel I've been a busybody clerk enough on that case. (Compare also [156] and you may see what I mean.) Bishonen | talk22:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC).
I'm still not here. I'm writing about politics and avoiding grading papers and splashing around in the slough of despond. However, I hit "random article" every now and again, and I hit Leah Marangu. It appears to be a 100% slander article and violation of BLP. Don't these people have SnapChat to malign administration? Hithladaeus (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, dear, good catch. I've reverted the slander, which was the three most recent edits, and what remains looks more like a promotional article, seriously undersourced. Perhaps I ought to WP:PROD it as such... not sure. Oh, never mind. I wish there was some point in blocking the IPs that added the slander, but I doubt it. Bishonen | talk19:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC).
Another caste warrior
Hi Bishonen, you are most familiar with the trouble with the caste articles. Can you deal with this guy, and semi-protect the Telaga article? There is incessant noise on the talk page. I have spent quite a bit of time this week to research the issues, and take their concerns into account. But all they want is to glorify their castes. Pity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya3, I've blocked 173.167.210.137 for disruptive editing, which they have certainly perpetrated, but I have a little difficulty with this. You say on User talk:173.167.210.137 that they have made nine edits to Telaga, but I only see four, and not that many IP edits at all recently in the article history. I'm not sure semi is needed. Are you saying they've been using other IPs/accounts to edit Telaga? Bishonen | talk12:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, yes, you are right. Four edits. It is ok to leave the page open for now. Thanks for your attention!
As an active administrator on the AE notice board and as the twin (is it?) of Bishzilla, I wanted to mention that there are problems at Talk:Sciences Po that you could possibly help with. I was alerted there by an RfC. Thank you for your time in doing something or delegating inquiries into what exactly is going on there. As I said on AE, happy December. SashiRolls (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm actually Bishzilla's mom, but I don't have a lot of control over her. Unfortunately I can't spare the time to engage with Talk:Sciences Po. And it's not connected with arbitration enforcement, is it? I suggest either dispute resolution or, if it's a behavior issue, WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk12:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC).
They've been there and done that. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935 #Agressive comments over Sciences Po page for the failure of ANI to sort anything out. Meanwhile the fully-protected page has chunks of unsourced puffery like "Partner universities include: Berkeley (USA), Cambridge (England), ...", ungrammatical text - complete with Spoonerisms - like "Descoing had been criticized for offering large sums of money (through salary rise, free accommodation, etc.) to diverse members of staff, included his wife, in spite of the fact that Sciences Po in partly stately funded.", and similar poor writing. I'm glad I didn't attend a stately funded university. I don't expect you'll want to dip your toes into this dispute, but at some point, somebody needs to read the article (not the talk page) and do some clean-up. Just my humble opinion, of course. --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Just to point this out gently, but that's not so easy; the article is locked down to those who don't care because of those who do. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Topic ban appeal
{{subst:Arbitration enforcement appeal
| Appealing user
= <Simon Mugava>
User imposing the sanction
= <Bishonen>
< Indefinitely topic ban from Uebert Angel and all related pages imposed at
I do feel that this topic ban was imposed incorrectly. Editors misunderstood my concerns regarding the matter of Uebert Angel. At times we were all saying the thing with other editors. I agree that i made some changes without notifying other editors on the talk which is wrong however I wasn't fully aware that it was a mandate to do this and I can promise that I will inform other editors of my opinion before making changes. I was also banned because cherry picking nice words, I was under the impression that that's what Wikipedia is for, now I am aware that if i'm quoting an article in newspapers I will quote everything as necessary for the betterment of the article on wikipedia
I will make useful contributions on wikipedia especially concerning this article & I would like this ban to be reconsidered and be lifted
Simon Mugava (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Simon. I suppose you're asking me to reconsider your topic ban from Uebert Angel? I'm afraid I won't. I blocked you for tendentious editing and failing to engage constructively with what people told you on the article talkpage or indeed on your own user talkpage. That's serious, and disruption of biographies of living people is altogether taken extremely seriously on Wikipedia. I want to emphasize again that you're free to edit the entire rest of Wikipedia, and it's a pity you haven't done any of that so far. Of course it would make a better impression if you showed some interest in Wikipedia as such; then you wouldn't merely come across as an Uebert Angel fanatic wanting to promote your prophet. For those reasons, I'm afraid I think it's pretty unlikely that the ban will be reconsidered by the community either, yet, but perhaps after you have shown you can edit articles that aren't related to Angel. You are certainly free to try appealing on one of the boards WP:AN, WP:AE or WP:ARCA, now or later (just one of them!). If you want to try WP:AE but have trouble with the required template (as you seem to have, since you posted parts of it above on my page), how about asking Boing! said Zebedee, on your own page, to help you format your request? Bishonen | talk16:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC).
Ok thank you. Again I am not a fanatic of Uebert Angel. Of course i can find something that i have knowledge about or at least researched and edit on Wikipedia. Also remember I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so sometimes I can only edit topics I have researched or that are in my interested. I did explain why I was editing that way and i did not know the consequences of what i was doing, I sincerely apologise and promise to to do it again. I would like to trust that you can lift my ban and appealing on one of the boards might not be necessary. You can still check all my edits on this article if anything is tendentious then you can always ban me. In the mean time i will look for other articles to edit as well.Simon Mugava (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Simon Mugava: She has already declined your appeal and told you how to proceed if you still desire to appeal the ban. Continuing to push here will not get you the result you want. I would strongly suggest that you find some other topics to edit for a couple of months before you attempt to get your topic ban lifted. As things stand now I am all but positive that no appeal you make will be successful. You have only edited on a single topic which not only were you topic banned from but were blocked twice in rapid succession for violating that ban. It also seems evident that you tried to get around the ban by socking (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simon Mugava). When you do decide to appeal to one of the noticeboards I would suggest you try WP:AE. Administrators are typically very good at considering appeals dispationatly. If you bring the issue to WP:ANI it is possible for things to go off the rails because they will not only examine the appeal but everything. That could possibly expose you to a WP:BOOMERANG indefinite block for not being here to build an encyclopedia, especially if you have not done some productive editing in other areas before bringing the matter up there. The worst WP:AE is likely to do, unless you do not listen to their input, is say no. I hope this helps a bit. JbhTalk17:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, User:Simon Mugava, I completely missed your post yesterday, or I would have replied. I don't know how that happened. Thank you very much, Jbhunley, for giving Simon good advice, and I hope he takes it to heart. Bishonen | talk18:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC).
Its ok @Bishonen. Jbhunley I give up. Now i am accused of socking. Don't know what that is. Mind you I am a new user no point stressing on these things. Anyways I will not pursue the topic ban appeal any further. My contributions were to make the article better and real! Thank you. Simon Mugava (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
That's good to hear, Simon Mugava. We can all stop stressing over your editing as well. The only thing that puzzles me is that if you want to make an article better, why you didn't choose one of the other 6,909,626 articles that we have? --RexxS (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you seriously trying to tell us that of the 6,909,626 articles that we have, there is only 1 that is "of your interest and that you have knowledge about"? You really need to get out more and stop wasting your life here. --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I had posted the message due to WP:BITE, and also because Sitush has readily made similar comments on my talk page and also the talk page of other editors in the middle of conversations not involving Sitush. It had nothing to do with any ArbCom sanctions on me. (There are no sanctions against me right now, but at the time i think i was restricted from editing any article concerning the Indian sub-continent.) You and i have had several disputes and confrontations ever since you falsely accused me of socking when i first started editing on WP, immediately after i had some disputes with Sitush, and it is not inconceivable that the reason you imposed the ArbCom block on me (which made it impossible to appeal to any other Admin) was because of your close relationship with Sitush.
Here is only one example of an editor who faced your wrath after being involved with a dispute with Sitush (in which you admitted to making an incorrect block long after the editor had stopped editing on WP):
WP:ADMINABUSE
Dear Bishonen. I am bluntly stating that you have all the appearances of being an involved administrator since Sitush was frantically signalling you to block me - and was very confident that I would be blocked too. I am concerned with WP:ADMINABUSE in my indefinite block because Sitush specially involved you (why you ?) in a dispute the SPA was having with him and myself,and then followed it up with calls on his talk page (which he knows you watch) sending signals about me BLOCK .. BLOCK .. BLOCK. All these factors indicate you are a BIASED admin whom Sitush deliberately "involved". When Sitush clearly wrote I would be blocked before my WP:3O would be taken up it he was certain you would do it. Why for instance have you not similarly blocked User:Dev raj gujjar who Sitush had also said he would write up for a ARBIPA block on Sitush's talkpage [11]. ie. Why me ?
PS: It was certainly an accident that I read the dictionary in that way, and stopped reading at "butt in". Sigmabaroda (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear Bishonen, Your statement that you don't edit pages on India is incorrect. You and Sitush have both closely edited here [12]. And you both also have closely spaced edits on India Talk pages [13], Sigmabaroda (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Sigmabaroda. You were quite right in January that arbitration enforcement blocks aren't supposed to be indefinite. I don't know why I was so stubborn about it, I apologise. I have now converted your AE block to an ordinary indefinite block, which you can appeal in the ordinary way per the instructions below. Bishonen
I can give many more examples of you coming along and banning or blocking editors who have been involved with disputes with Sitush. And this edit of yours indicates that you know Sitush personally: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=740882474 since your claim that Sitush has experience in the academic study of Indian topics is clearly ascertained through personal communication with Sitush (Wikipedia editing is clearly not a form of academic study).
I did not appeal your earlier block since i could not appeal an ArbCom block with another Admin, and because i thought it meaningless to appeal a 24 hour block at AE since they typically take more than 24 hours to decide any case. But i recently came across WP editors who went to great lengths to establish whether the blocking Admin's block was a valid one in order to maintain the sanctity of their block records and to prevent further frivolous blocks. See for example: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:BullRangifer/BlockLog
I am therefore proposing to take you to WP:COIN so that you can disclose the full extent of your personal relationship with Sitush. My proposal is that you should not be banning or blocking or be involved as an Admin with any editors in edit conflicts with Sitush due the fact that you are WP:INVOLVED since you seem to know Sitush personally. Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Soham321, your accusations are completely ridiculous. I strongly urge you to drop the stick as I can absolutely guarantee you that you will not get the result you're looking for as your entire argument is based on a platform of ignorance.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots21:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Ponyo, I thought about whether i am guilty of not dropping the stick. In my opinion i would have been guilty of not dropping the stick if i had taken Bishonen to ANI or AN. But a COIN investigation is not just about me and Bishonen; it is for the greater good of Wikipedia. If Bishonen can satisfactorily explain here on what grounds she wrote that Sitush is "very experienced with the academic study of the subject", i would be happy not to initiate the COIN investigation. Soham321 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
You completely misunderstand the purpose of COIN and are going to misuse the noticeboard to make a baseless complaint about a 24-hour block that occurred a year and a half ago. It's an unnecessary time sink for everyone involved and this petty vendetta will continue to reflect poorly on you. This is no different than when you unsuccessfully appealed your topic ban again and again and again. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots22:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
My unsuccessful appeals about the Arbcom sanctions imposed on me were due to the fact that i was not knowledgeable about the rules of wikipedia editing earlier; this was applicable both to my WP editing (which resulted in the sanctions on me in the first place) and also to the way i framed my appeals. I am now a lot more knowledgeable about WP rules and recently successfully contested an ANI complaint initiated against me by someone. Soham321 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
That you are framing this complaint as an WP:INVOLVED and WP:COIN issue, and that you somehow believe this continued witch hunt "is for the greater good of Wikipedia", demonstrates that you are not "a lot more knowledgeable about WP rules". --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots22:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Reading your post hastily at first, User:Soham, I was just about to briefly state the full extent of my relationship with Sitush right here, but then it dawned on me that you never even asked me. You just talked about taking me somewhere so that I could disclose it (?), and expressed your own suspicions that I "seem to" know Sitush personally. Is it just me, or is it remarkably rude not to start by simply asking me? Since you didn't, I don't wish to answer. If somebody does ask, say at WP:COIN or wherever, I will certainly answer truthfully and perhaps even make sensational and intimate disclosures about our relationship, who knows? Do take me anywhere you like with my blessing. Don't be a spoilsport, Ponyo. Hey, Drmies, you seem to support Sitush a lot too, don't you? What do you have to say for yourself? There was even a special Sitush complaint generator with extra Drmies; doesn't that tell you something? Bishonen | talk22:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for your response Bishonen. I apologize if you considered my earlier comment to be rude. I apologize for not framing my earlier comment more politely. I am now asking you again to explain on what basis you wrote that Sitush is "very experienced with the academic study of the subject" and whether you know Sitush personally.Soham321 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3) Soham321: please go ahead and waste your time at COIN. Just make sure that you notify 'Shonen here, so that I can drop by the noticeboard and ask for sanctions on you for wasting other editors' time and tendentious editing. I'm possibly the only Wikimedian who has had the pleasure of meeting both Sitush and Bishonen in person, one in England and one in Sweden, and I can assure you that neither knows the other personally, nor is there any conflict of interest involved. The fact that Sitush will often share problems he encounters on-wiki with Bishonen is an indication that she is one of the most responsible and helpful admins we have, and has a reputation for listening and taking dispassionate action, without fear or favour. There are not many who have taken Jimbo to ArbCom. For those reasons, you'll find that no experienced user is going to accept with the story you're trying to peddle. Now, you can take my advice and drop the stick, or you can sail on into the inevitable removal of your editing privileges here. Don't cry afterwards that you weren't warned. --RexxS (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Bish and Sitush, sitting on a tree, K I S S I N G ! [I fondly remember the "extra Drmies". Bish, next time we're in the hot tub I'll tell you all about a dream a colleague of mine had WITH EXTRA DRMIES IN IT!) Also, Soham, you know I love you like a brother, but I don't know what you're trying to get at. However, a. it's not there and b. this isn't the way. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't take much to know that Sitush went to a top British university, and has very little patience with uninformed, pov-pushing editors. You may not like his temper, but at least he's well-informed and razor-sharp in his arguments. By the way, the correct link is WP:COI. But that's not the policy you're looking for; maybe you mean WP:TAGTEAM? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!05:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Sitush went to university? That explains a lot--this bias towards facts and reliable sources. Very irritating, and very old-fashioned. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I can confirm that Sitush, as well as JamesBWatson and Slim Virgin all attended my alma mater, although I'd graduated before those young'uns matriculated, so sadly I never had the opportunity to meet any of them in Cambridge. I was a contemporary of Prince Charles and Douglas Adams, but that's no consolation. Anyway, that should give the conspiracy theorists plenty to work on for their next round of finger-pointing. Point away, I say. --RexxS (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
You're pretty full of yourself, RexxS. I'm a contemporary of Charlotte Brontë! My dear, dear Mr Thackeray and I sat in a tree, composing Jane Eyre under a pen name! Bishonen | talk21:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC).
Pre-Appeal Notice
Just thought I'd address your reasons for the ban before I appeal:
Regarding your reasoning that I deserve a ban because I called Volunteer Marek's edit "filth," this user has been harassing me for over a month, following me from article to article. Not at all "civil," as you say. I committed no BLP violations, therefore the repeated "warnings/threats" from this tendentious editor are unwarranted. I stand by my characterization of the user's harassment as very qualifying for the word "filth." Regarding your claim that I launched a "wholesale attack" when I raised the issue of Chelsea Clinton using Foundation funds to pay for her wedding, that phrase is absolutely backed by the sources that I cited, which includes the words straight from the mouth of a Clinton camp staffer. Band's words were also analyzed by a RS, and cemented the revelations from the email. I was very careful about my wording. I never said Chelsea used Foundation funds; I said that there was no mention of this issue in the article, inexplicably. Not a BLP violation. So what we're left with is a 6 month ban for an alleged WP:SOAPBOXING violation and something about "hobbyhorses[sic]." Hardly fitting. If you'd like to respond and/or defend the very lengthy ban here, I can wait until you've done so before forwarding this case up the ladder. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, but I think I'll just decline your appeal to me, if that is what this is, rather than discuss it; I don't think we'd get very far. More eyes would be better, so please don't wait to take it to a suitable board. I suppose you know where to go? There's a link in my ban template, and as you can see you have three boards to choose between. I advise you to take a look at them before you decide — they're not all the same. Feel free to ask here if you'd like me to elucidate that. Bishonen | talk18:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC).
Oh no, this wasn't an appeal to you at all. I already knew that would be a lost cause, and it would compromise my own values and dignity. We're finally in agreement about something! I just figured I'd be nice and give you an opportunity to defend your accusations. So since you declined that opportunity, I think I'll just address that...content that you left on my page in the appeal process. Many thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)<sarcasm>How generous of you to give Bishonen an opportunity to "defend her accusations".<sarcasm> Sheeesh, either make a formal appeal or drop the stick, because what you're doing here, patronising the administrator who issued the topic ban in full accordance with Wikipedia rules, isn't exactly helping your case... - Tom | Thomas.W talk20:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Haha...I'm working on it, I'm working on it! @Thomas.W The process ain't exactly user-friendly. Trying to make sure I follow all the rules and protocol, here. The administrator in question has been condescending towards me from our very first encounter, and I refuse to kiss the ring in order to restore my editing privileges that I should never have had revoked in the first place (in my opinion). I feel very confident that I've done nothing wrong. Anyway, back to work for me. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, John. Going to look, I noticed there's one from Peeta Singh below as well. Well, there are worse crimes that not notifying the admin, I guess. (But not many! Grrrrr! ROARRR!) Bishonen | talk10:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC).
Reason for Block?
How is contributing towards the improving Wikipedia being construed. [157] I've followed the rules, improved articles and spent countless hours expanding Wikipedia and i'm rewarded by getting blocked.
Before I edited the Punjabi language article [158]
At present after I edited the article. Was I construed for adding information with reliable sources?
Before I edited the Gurmukhi alphabet article [159]
At present after I edited the article. Was I construed for adding information with reliable sources?
Was I construed for following the guidelines and considering Consensus? [161], [162]
At least tell me why I have been blocked and how improving articles based on reliable sources is pushing a national agenda? Why do users and administrators on Wikipedia do not want the improvement of Punjab and Sikh-related topics?
@Peeta Singh: Our paths have not crossed lately, but your disruption has gone on for too long. Just read the patient guidance and reminders by numerous admins and editors, that you just mass deleted from your talk page. From repeated copyvio reminders to using wikipedia articles as a platform for "Panjab-nation/Khalistan" POV-pushing as noted by @Apuldram, from WP:OR to WP:BATTLEGROUND with @Utcursch, to edit war warning by @RegentsPark. Much you have done and keep doing shows WP:NOTHERE. Now you feign surprise at block by @Bishonen, and allege your disruption "improves this or that project, or Punjab and Sikh-related topics". You are way off, way off my dear. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I haven't been involved with this editor, but their POV-pushing has been all too apparent.
@Peeta Singh, you have been topic-banned from only the Sikh/Punjab topic area. The rest of Wikipedia is still available for you to edit. I would encourage you to do so and learn to edit according to Wikipedia policies. If you demonstrate good understanding of the policies and show problem-free conduct over a period of time, you can request for a lifting of the topic ban. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Why am I being accused of "using wikipedia articles as a platform for "Panjab-nation/Khalistan""? I'm sincerely improving articles using reliable sources. I have rarely used these terms "Panjab-nation/Khalistan", then how am I promoting it?
Yes, I agree that I have made unintentional copyvio, but that was when I was new. Every time I've been told off, I tried learning from my mistakes and not repeating them. I tried being careful, but your crew didn't stop: hassling me, bulling me, trying to getting me blocked (from day one and numerous times) and disrupting me from improving Punjab and Sikh-related topics. I felt intimidate at every stage by these people who act as the owners of the Punjab and Sikh-related pages.
I'm allegedly being accused of WP:NOTHERE but what about how their crew promoting India at any and every article where it's not relevant, even sometimes without proper referencing [163]? What about their crew trying to push the Indo-Aryan theory? [164] Why are the guideline different for their crew and me?
User:Kautilya3, why have I been blocked for sincerely improving articles in the first place?
Peeta Singh, you have not been blocked. Blocks prevent you from editing Wikipedia (if you had been blocked, you wouldn't be able to edit this page, for example). You have been topic banned. That's not a block, and does not technically prevent you from editing anywhere; the topic ban means that you're not allowed to edit pages related to the Sikh/Punjabi topic area. People have been explaining to you in detail above how you have been disruptive in the area, and a lot of advice and warnings have also been posted to your own page — you have blanked most of it, but I can still read it through the page history. For this reason, I will not reconsider the ban. My advice to you is to edit the rest of Wikipedia, that you have not been banned from. But you are certainly free to appeal the ban, on one of the boards WP:AN, WP:AE, or WP:ARCA. Only one of them, please. Oh, I see you have already appealed at WP:AE. Bishonen | talk10:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC).
I feel like User:Peeta Singh is just repeating himself when he answers every query. Despite leaving him plenty of long messages on his talk page, he simply replies with a repeat of what he stated earlier and proceeded with POV insertions and edit warring.
How is anyone "promoting India at any and every article where it's not relevant" & "pushing the Indo-Aryan theory" when that is what the original text that has been present for years said? How come is it that, for years on end an article with over 2000 views daily that stated "Indo-Aryan" was never challenged as "promotion of Indo-Aryan theory"?
Besides the disruptive editing in infoboxes and leads/first sentences in articles that have been discussed on his talk page as well as on the admin incidents notice board; I find the User:Peeta Singh's categorisation also to be an attempt at unduly depicting a Sikh/Punjab country. Sikh male poetsCategory:Punjabi lawCategory:Punjabi_legal_professionalsCategory:Punjabi lawCategory:Punjabi scientists (most of them being empty and contain links to nationalities x by nationality or x by country, essentially referring to Punjab as a country) The very need for the existence of such categories is questionable.
User:Peeta Singh's edits on Wikivoyage and Wikidata are also of interest. On Wikidata he named "Khalistan" as one of the aliases of the Punjab [165] (Along with the symbol of Sikhism being inserted as the symbol of Punjab); he also changed the language family of Punjabi from Indo-Aryan to Indo-European; further showing subtle attempts to depict a Sikh/Punjab-nation while removing all associations to Indian-related topics.
Hi, Salma. I agree with you about the WP:IDHT problems, that's why I topic banned. Where users will listen, bans usually aren't necessary. They do repeat themselves a lot. Perhaps you should report disruption of Wikivoyage and Wikidata at those projects? Wikipedia admins don't have any influence there. Bishonen | talk23:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC).
Just curious II
Hi Bishonen, I just came across the "Do not say With all due respect" discussions, but even after lengthy reading, I didn't find what was this mysterious one original sentence of your essay. :( Could you give me a link or tell me what your words were? --SI07:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC) (BTW, being "welcomed" on editing your talk page by "Welcome to my page, little user." comes across rather patronising to me.)
Hi Schmarrnintelligenz. It's been deleted, so I can't link to it, but I'll tell you the entire content. It said: "When addressing another editor, it is normally better not to start with the phrase "With all due respect" as everybody knows it really means "Go fuck yourself". On the other hand, using the phrase can be quite handy in a case where you do wish to tell a user to go fuck themselves, but prefer not to be blocked for incivility. Using the phrase and linking it to this essay ensures maximum clarity, but may carry a degree of risk." A silly little "essay", as you can see — it was never meant to be there for years and years. There was a "nutshell" too: ""With all due respect" means very little respect is due." About the little users in my edit notice: oops! I'm afraid I was channelling User:Bishzilla, who is very large, and, reasonably, addresses people as "little" all the time. I suppose I was sort of talking to the people who come here who do know Bishzilla, as many of them do. That was fairly idiotic of me, as certainly other people come here too. I've removed it, thanks for pointing it out. Bishonen | talk10:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC).
I don't know what you mean by "zing", but lawyers are experts at telling people to go fuck themselves without actually saying it. Maybe that's what you meant. ―Mandruss☎18:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Or some actually say it, as other editors who want to tell someone to fuck off without saying it refer to: "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram" 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk)19:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, User:Mandruss. The TOC is hanging off a single nail, rocking gently back and forth (refresh page to see it move). Compare this thread above. Not much I can do about it as long as I have these evil talkpage stalkers. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: in view of your username, perhaps you understand Bishzilla's ancient tongue? I expect she might say something like "Med lagom högaktning". Bishonen | talk20:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen/zilla, thank you for both responses :) And sorry that I restarted that old discussion again, that was not my intention. And I am really astonished, because I still lived with the impression that "with all due respect" was usually considered polite. Good that I now learned I should never use it. --SI22:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Now this is interesting. What if I write "with the greatest respect", or "with respect", (because I respect the person in question) will that also generally be interpreted as "go fuck yourself" on WP? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree, the "fuck" code is all in the word "due", or as in Gråberg's example above, "appropriate". Also, it was kind of a jocular essay, you know. Most people who say "with all due respect" probably mean no harm. Bishonen | talk10:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC).
Being topic banned, [167] I would like to request permission to complete the Template:Punjabi film list by listing the Punjabi films in the remaining years and including Punjabi films from east and west Punjab from the years they are missing. This is a non-controversial task which will improve the Punjabi cinema article.
I'm afraid not, Peeta Singh. The ban apples to all editing of Punjabi- and Sikh-related pages, even editing that would possibly improve the article. Also, its hard for me to fathom the possibly political subtleties of such a list, so I can't tell if your editing would necessarily be uncontroversial. @RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff: do you agree with me?
My advice to you is to edit articles outside the area of the topic ban for at least a few months, and show you can do so without POV-pushing and then — having shown yourself to be a valuable contributor — apply again for the ban to be lifted. Unless of course your current appeal is successful, but that's not looking very promising at WP:AE right now. Bishonen | talk01:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC).
Would it be against my topic ban if I prepared the content but some other user posted it?
Punjab region-related articles need attention, because these articles are neither the priority of the Pakistani and nor Indian users. Just go through this article, and you'll realize how their just battling over the region and just trying to push their POV.
They've got un-sourced material such as:
"The propensity of the Punjabi (be it from the Pakistani Punjab or the Indian Punjab) is to be very vocal and loud and open about things Punjabi"[168]
Whats the need of writing "be it from the Pakistani Punjab or the Indian Punjab", People who are reading the article must already know about the physical geography. Now I don't know if these terms are put in place intentionally or unintentionally but they're unnecessary.
Another example is the Sikhism article where it says "originated in the Punjab region of the Indian Subcontinent during the..." but according to the Indian subcontinent article, "South Asia" is the conventional nomenclature. [169] I tried changing it and making the article NPOV but because i'm Sikh and Punjab, other users may have got the impression that I'm trying to secretly promote something. [170]That has never been the case!
Further the article says, "An Indian religion, Sikhism rejects claims that any particular..." I've checked one source and haven't found this term, not sure about the other one. Users may argue that it's been listed as a Indian religion because it was founded in India, but Guru Nanak the founder was born in Rai-Bhoi-Di-Talwandi, Punjab (present day Pakistan) and the Sikh history took place all over Punjab, both west (in Pakistan) and East (in India). Doesn't categorizing a religion/nation under the name of a country founded in 1947 breach NPOV? Just for the sake of categorizing Sikhi, some may argue that it's a Dharmic religion. In Sikhi, dharm means path of righteousness, don't all religions claim to be the path of righteousness?
Even though these are valid points, I know i'll just get ignored and directed to WP:OR.
From the Punjab region article, "The Punjab region within India maintains a strong influence on the perceived culture of India towards the rest of the world. Numerous Bollywood film productions use the Punjabi language in their songs and dialogue as well as traditional dances such as bhangra. Bollywood has been dominated by Punjabi artists including actors Prithviraj Kapoor, Raj Kapoor, Dev Anand, Vinod Khanna, Dharmendra, Shammi Kapoor, Rishi Kapoor, Shashi Kapoor, Kabir Bedi, Rajesh Khanna, Angad Singh, Amitabh Bacchan (from his mother's side), Pran, Prem Chopra, Vinod Mehra, Manoj Kumar, Akshay Kumar Sunny Deol, Anil Kapoor, Poonam Dhillon, Juhi Chawla, Hrithik Roshan and Kareena Kapoor, singers Mohammed Rafi, Mahendra Kapoor, and Narendra Chanchal. Punjabi Prime Ministers of India include Gulzarilal Nanda, Inder Kumar Gujral and Dr. Manmohan Singh. There are numerous players in the Indian cricket team both past and present including Bishen Singh Bedi, Kapil Dev, Mohinder Amarnath, Navjot Sidhu, Harbhajan Singh, Yuvraj Singh Virat Kohli, and Yograj Singh."
Based on what? Is this not POV pushing?
I think this is stating to get way too long so i'll conclude, please just give me an indication, if I can or cannot prepare the content and request another user to post it. The reason i'm doing all this is because I want to improve a topic that needs intention.
Peeta Singh, no, you cannot, and you can't discuss these topics anywhere, not even here on my page, or other user talkpages. I understand that you posted your questions in good faith and didn't realise they are covered by your topic ban, but they are. Now you know, so please don't do it again. See SpacemanSpiff's warning on your page. Isn't there anything else you might be interested in editing on Wikipedia? Bishonen | talk09:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC).
(talk page stalker)@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: It's an automated notification, created automagically by the web interface when nominating a page for deletion (with no need to visit the page it's posted to), so the user may not even be aware of Peeta Singh's topic ban. - Tom | Thomas.W talk20:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. Someone wrote about me: "Notice too how all the criticism about this obsession of him has been edited so it is hidden for casual readers both here and in his talk page." What they're actually saying is that I've redacted commentaries and threads to hide criticism of my editing, right? Which is a very serious accusation, and a violation of core Wikipedia policies, when it is not substantiated, right? No admin-action needed here, but I wanted to make sure that I'm right when I think that this is highly offensive, so I'm asking your opinion (I'm actually not so much offended, as very curious and surprised about this comment, since it is so baseless). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!05:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
This is an obvious sock if they can document JJ's behavior for years and do so within the space of four edits. Also, it's that time of the year when the socks come out at that article! —SpacemanSpiff05:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely, thanks for the heads up, Sagecandor. I will warn the user. Perhaps they weren't aware of the scope of topic bans, and they also seem to have some (erroneous) notion that adding text related to American politics is OK so long as they merely restored the text and didn't compose it. So, a warning. If it happens again they won't have any excuse. Bishonen | talk17:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC).
Right, right... after I italicized as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic and everything. OK. I'm not interested in arguing with him, because I don't see how I could put it any more clearly. And another admin has already warned him again. Bishonen | talk19:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC).
Except that he's now defiant in the face of the other admin as well. In future, I'd suggest Sagecandor that you take topic ban violations straight to ANI. Just the diffs of the sanction, and the offending edit - plus perhaps the context of the section where the edit took place would be enough, I imagine, to find an admin who is far less tolerant of topic ban violations than 'Shonen. You only need to find one.
Sorry, chère, but at times you're altogether too soft on these POV-warriors who make the project a nightmare for genuinely dispassionate editors in far too many topics. 'Zilla would have fried them by now. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks RexxS yeah I saw new comment by the user at [176]. Not sure about ANI but maybe another time at the Arbitration Enforcement page, if that makes sense at this point ? Sagecandor (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Not at all, I'm hard as nails! But I do warn them at the first violation, because 80% of them don't understand the topic ban template, they have to be walked through it. You think I won't block him if he does it again, RexxS? Ha, we'll see. Feel free to come to me about ban violations, Sagecandor. ANI is fine too, but taking them to AE , or Template Nightmare as I call it, is a bit like shaving a pig (= a lot of trouble and noise for not much wool). Bishonen | talk22:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC).
On the other hand, I suppose somebody might block him for a while (without talkpage access, for sure) for being a rude jerk,[177] but that's not something I like to do much. Please don't be provoked, Calton, because, you know, that's the intention. Ignore it. Bishonen | talk00:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC).
(edit conflict) No, I'm afraid -- for maybe the first time -- I'll have to disagree with you. That edit -- in the face of two explicit warnings by two different admins -- to add unambiguously political content ("Pravdaesque") to an explicitly post-1932 American political page is about as bright-line a violation of his AE restriction as can be, and given his Wikilawyering and ICANTHEARYOU arguments, virtually certain to be repeated unless sanctioned. (Post-ec: so something happened while I was playing hunt-and-peck with my iPad, then.)--Calton | Talk00:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Calton, if it's so certain to be repeated (I'd put money on it, too, yes), then what is the hurry? Much simpler to wait till it is in fact repeated, in a more juicy and indubitable way. Anyway, I'm going to bed, talk amongst yourselves. Bishonen | talk00:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC).
What's the hurry? Nothing, except to try to ensure it doesn't happen at all and save everyone the trouble of having to monitor his edits (which DOES sound perilously close to actual cyberstalking).
@RexxS:Ha ha that does look painful. Well hopefully there's no rush, and I suppose if the user goes on a bender someone can deal with it if that happens. Sagecandor (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
You mean let you know here on my page, Ed? Well, I see pros and cons with granting Hidden Tempo's appeal. Systematizing:
Pro: the Wikipedian tradition of offering second chances is certainly honorable. Hidden Tempo is obviously very keen to continue editing American politics, or perhaps keen to escape the stigma of a topic ban, or both. For instance, he eagerly embraced your suggestion of providing a shorter statement and even asked your advice about it. That eagerness seems like a good sign, as high motivation would surely make him strive to keep his nose clean, and maybe listen better. And he'll have more eyes on him now.
Con: Hidden Tempo only changed his AE text under the gallows, when it had become obvious that he was heading for a decline of his appeal. Right up to your offer to reconsider if he revised drastically, he had never redacted, retracted, or struck out a single thing AFAICS, no matter what objections were made. He seemed satisfied with what he had written and claimed he had been exceptionally polite throughout.[179] The short text I'm looking at now is certainly a lot better and more civil. But it doesn't sit altogether well with me that he speaks of being "perceived" as having an inherent pro-Trump/anti-Clinton bias, and proposes to take measures "to prevent these accusations from being leveled in the future" — focusing on other people's perceptions, which from his tone ("accusations", leveled") are construed as unfair perceptions. I wouldn't take issue with such subtleties of subtext, which could be all in my head, if it wasn't for the fact that now, after HT submitted the short version, he's still, after all that has gone down, standing by his claim that he is a "neutral editor".[180] I don't think that bodes well, as he has been given many opportunities to deepen his understanding of what "neutrality" on political pages means, for instance Boing!'s cogent remarks here. ("Another example of literalism is in Hidden Tempo's claims that, because he has not specifically said who he does or does not support between Trump and Clinton, he should be seen as editing neutrally. Editing with a POV is a far wider issue than just explicitly stating your position on a subject.") Many editors on Trump/Clinton pages have a bias, indeed – a political preference — you can see Doc9871, higher up on the AE page, proudly standing by his bias, being frank about it, which is a good thing IMO. Most editors are aware of their own bias and strive to edit fairly all the same, though they don't always succeed (and some don't indeed always seem to be trying, either). But I've never seen anybody so aggressively pushing a POV while so tortuously claiming to be neutral.
I guess I ended up with more "cons". I won't be withdrawing my ban. But I don't want to further influence the discussion among uninvolved admins, and please don't think I'll be put out if they decide to grant the appeal. I'm very happy leaving the decision to them. Bishonen | talk16:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC).
Just in the interest of completeness and so anyone seeing this comment has the full picture (e.g., @EdJohnston), I wanted to point that I did in fact make a strike[181] when requested by MelanieN[182]. Also, I realize that you believe that I am a biased guy and not a neutral editor, but I am of the understanding that I am permitted to have whatever thoughts/political views I wish, so long as I obey the rules of Wikipedia. Even though it may not sit well with you that I consider myself neutral and that I used the word "perceive" to describe the opinions of some editors that my edits are attempts to push a POV, I really don't think it's fair to hold that against me so long as I have agreed to conduct myself better now that I have a firmer understanding of the rules. As EdJohnston said, the primary purpose of a ban is for the prevention of future violations, not for forcing Wikipedians to agree that they deserved a ban and agree with the reasoning behind it. Many other users have stated that they do not believe my edits are biased/POV pushing (can provide diffs if it makes a...difference lol), and it is the users who have repeatedly accused me of POV who are in fact pushing their POV in a sort of twist of POV-ception. But regardless, I think my statement more than proves that I have a far better handle on policies and how to prevent any future violations from occurring. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Tempo. Can you please explain what that was about? You are telling another contributor today to strike their comment or else. What you (or possibly someone else who is currently active on WP:AE) will do if the user does not follow your request? My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
My very best wishes, I don't want to seem inhospitable, but you're wantonly offering Hidden Tempo openings for further posting on my page, something I'd be happier if he did as little as possible (consistent with his right to ask questions about his topic ban, naturally). Please take it elsewhere. Bishonen | talk19:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) I won't be saying any of this on the AE page. Involved and all that. But wow! HT managed, for 500 words, to sound reasonable and conciliatory and fully understanding of what he needs to do. But then he immediately followed up with a long (7000 byte) attack[183] on you (Bishonen) and RexxS, accusing you of everything from "having a very cavalier and lax attitude toward blocks and bans" to having "an extraordinarily cozy relationship" with RexxS. His accusations balloon into a full-blown conspiracy theory, which he will graciously pass over, provided RexxS apologizes and strikes everything he has written. I think it is clear that the second posting totally contradicts all the promises of moderation and restraint in the revised appeal - and reveals the real Hidden Tempo, which we can expect to see a lot more of, if the sanctions are overturned. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN, while I appreciate you putting in your two cents regarding this edit (which you inexplicably refer to as a "conspiracy theory"), I believe you are giving Bishonen far too little credit. She is an adult, and more than capable of replying to my concerns if she so desires. I tagged her several times in the post, so she was already well-aware of the edit. Nevertheless, we appreciate your concern. Thank you. Also, I believe she has also asked another user to cease addressing my issues on her talk page, so as to prevent further interaction with someone she obviously holds in contempt, so I feel we should respect her wishes. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hidden Tempo, I don't hold you in contempt — that would be bad — but I'm not contractually obliged to like you. At the beginning of your AE appeal, I made a point of being as polite as possible to you no matter how much you sneered at me. That was fitting, as I was the banning admin and could be seen as having the upper hand. But here you can see I've had enough. I would have liked that little explosion to stand as my final comment to you, but I guess it'll have to be this post instead. Please don't come to my page any more, unless it's specifically to ask questions about your topic ban; surely you don't have to keep popping up every time somebody mentions you to me. (Which, as I've said, they'd better stop doing, even though I appreciate your input above, Melanie and Tom.) If you have an irresistible urge to reply to them, do it on their page. I certainly won't go elsewhere to talk to you. Admins are human too, strange to tell (well, actually they're part robots). Bishonen | talk21:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC).
Some help?
Greetings, Bishonen. I think you have had some previous experience with Barthateslisa, such as here. Would you mind taking a look at their recent contributions, particularly at Narendra Modi and Talk:Narendra Modi? SpacemanSpiff mentioned that Sitush had also asked you to take a look at them once before, but I cannot for the life of me find that link. I feel a topic ban might be in order, but obviously, my hands are tied. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I might've been mistaken on who brought it up, I remember reading about this issue out here once. I'll hasten to add that at certain points in time, unlike when the Lady Catherine visits, this talk page should be avoided if one wants some light reading! —SpacemanSpiff07:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: You should have pinged @Barthateslisa: instead of using {{noping|Barthateslisa}}, if you are discussing about the editor in another administrator's talk page, requesting a topic ban. I feel a topic ban might be in order, why? MarvellousSpider-Man15:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This is not a discussion: this is a message to Bishonen, asking her to take a look at something. I see you've pinged Barthateslisa, but they cannot respond in any case as they are blocked. Also, two days ago you began a frivolous ANI complaint against me which you then declined to follow up in any way: so you'll forgive me if I view your presence here with some skepticism. Since you ask: frequent and persistent misunderstandings of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, and disruptive editing resulting from that. Why not just let Bishonen come by? Vanamonde (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Vanamonde. I'm sorry I've left your request unanswered for several days, but the fact is these pages and topics are difficult for me. I do take some admin actions wrt the area nevertheless, not only because I "have a very cavalier and lax attitude toward blocks and bans" though that's part of it, but also because Indian etc. subjects tend to be short of uninvolved admins. Anyway, I've looked into it now, and agree that Barthateslisa has been disruptive in the area for some considerable time. I've topic banned him for three months from social groups and religion in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Bishonen | talk12:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC).
Many thanks, Bishonen. I understand about the difficulty, the disputes really get both nasty and facepalm-worthy very frequently. Which is why I spend a good bit of my time editing elsewhere, where I can write in peace...I'm glad you're willing to step in, though, because as you rightly said we're short on uninvolved admins. It's a bit of a catch-22 for those of us that are admins in that area: we could not edit and remain uninvolved, but then be left adminning a POV mess: or get our hands dirty, and then ask for help :) Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Peeta, I've echoed the gist of your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sikhs in Punjabi Cinema. I do think, though, that bringing your concerns here is yet another breach of your topic ban. Could I please encourage you to find some other topics to edit while you wait for your topic ban to expire? Don't you have any interests out side of Punjabi-related topic? I thought for a moment that you might have been interested in the economy of Canada, but that turned out to be a forlorn hope. Failing that, have you considered using your skills to translate English articles into the Punjabi Wikipedia? --RexxS (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking about improving the Punjabi Wikipedia but wasn't sure if that was also part of my topic ban. So could you clearly indicate if i'm permitted to edit the Punjabi Wikipedia or not.
Further can I please indicate two other cases very similar to this. Only two!
Saw this at the top of my watchlist. As I'd already warned for topic ban violation once before, I've blocked for 48 hours as an AE action. —SpacemanSpiff07:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both. Oh, look, what a beautiful page notice picture today, thank you User:MONGO. I just this minute warned another topic banned user who had gone right ahead and violated their ban. The fact is, they hardly ever get it. I always tell them specifically to read WP:TBAN when I ban them, but apparently they never do. Maybe I should start quoting it at length? Bishonen | talk10:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC).
Arghh, I can't believe I wrote articles instead of pages in Peeta's ban notice. Changed now. It makes no difference wrt the violations you blocked for, Space. Bishonen | talk10:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC).
@Bish: I clicked edit just to see that MONGO picture! Cool Tetons... ages ago I visited the Yellowstone, stayed for a while in Jackson Hole with a family. They, pre-wikipedia NPOV pioneers, gave me two stories behind the name. Those majestic peaks were called Teton by lonely, French-Canadian men with imagination (Tétine, teats = téton) who were apparently trying to cross the vast midwest country to get somewhere, or it might just be the name of adventurous Lakota Indians in Lakota-speak, who knows. On quoting WP:TBAN, I doubt it will help the person behind the sanctioned account, but it sure will add more work for you. @Peeta Singh seems upset unfortunately, links IAR for @Doug Weller to read, added a note inviting you to block. All this after the kind words and suggestions by @RexxS, @SpacemanSpiff and others above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Ms Sara, I saw the rather sad message from PS to Doug. :-( Please note again that "@" system you have doesn't ping people — not sure if you were trying to do that? You need to link their username, the way I just did with yours. Actually, when I wrote about the edit notice picture, it was a wonderful mountain lake — it switches every twelve hours, courtesy of RexxS. The Tetons are cool too, indeed. Bishonen | talk14:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC).
Sometimes I just use "@" to identify the addressee, not to ping. With a lot of participants, I find it easier to read a thread. But indeed, sometimes I just goof up. I don't think I need to ping you when I post on your talk page; but may be I am mistaken. Now am wondering about that 'wonderful mountain lake'!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Great...some folks get views of mountains and I get to look at a Praying Mantis. MONGO need add more pretty pictures...mantis not pretty.--MONGO05:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hurry up and look now, little MONGO, it's a storm! Not pretty, but magnifique. Better take a good look before it turns into a whiskered fish! Bishonen | talk16:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC).
Sorry, Celia Homeford! I've blocked the range 172.58.216.0/23 now, which takes care of both of them. Please let me know if you should see any obviously related IPs that are still at large. If necessary, I could block a slightly larger range. Bishonen | talk13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC).
New Violations of Sanctions
Fly-by socks: Image of incendiary socks dropped from free flying balloons. Detail from: Civil Defence Training Pamphlet No 2: Objects Dropped From The Air (3rd Edition). Issued by the Ministry of Home Security. This training pamphlet described some of the objects which could be found on the ground after an air-raid, including certain items which, though not of enemy origin, may be mistaken for hostile weapons, and others that may drop from the air at any time.
Since it seems like you were one half of the decision on this AE [184]to give TTAAC an -ahem- 'last warning' about his disruptive behavior, I wanted to bring to your attention that there's been yet another jaw-dropping 1RR violation by this user no less than a mere few hours 'AFTER' the AE thread was closed with yet another "last warning" to that user: [185][186].
Forgive me for the irritation I may cause to the powers that be, but appeasing TTAAC like this over and over again and in the past has only served to empower him over the years (and this isn't the first time he has bullied and conned his way out of consequences for his behavior). It should be about conduct and competence, not a false equivalence about politics and a /false/ perception about how Trump supporters are unfairly treated on wikipedia. Their movement is largely an anti-intellectual one. So it's par for the course if they continually run into conflict with others in a decidedly *intellectual* community like wikipedia. The rest of us non-partisan historians shouldn't have to suffer because other overly-sensitive types feel like they these far-right conservative editors should be graded on a curve. It's not about liberal versus conservative. It about how many good editors who don't even go to speak up at AE because disruptive editors such as TTAAC have driven them off of articles that Arbcom recognized need special protection. Otherwise, why do we bother with the distinction at all?
I will never understand why Admins are so reluctant to enforce Arbcom discretionary sanctions and then even when a formal case is filed they second-guess whether the sanctions are really necessary, especially in a case as blatant as TTAAC. In fact, when TTAAC thought he was going to be topic banned he blamed it all on a liberally-biased conspiracy to rig the system against him, citing "a fix".[187] He only began to watch his behavior carefully at the end when and only when he was under the gallows. How you all missed that is mind-boggling. That he resumed his disruptive behavior (see above) the very moment the investigation was over shouldn't come as a surprise. Also ignored in the AE, in favor of appeasement, was the fact that TTAAC had been called out for a serious BLP violation when he falsely slandered the Christian American President of being the founder of the radical Islamic terrorist group ISIS.[188]. Maybe in America this is the norm where a black President's birthplace can be questioned without evidence and his religion questioned without reason. On the international community that is wikipedia, I hope the standard is higher. Never one for drama, I'm content with occasional editing of history pages, leaving the drama to the others, which is why my ego hasn't required the creation of an account until now. But if necessary to take a stand against this disruptiveness, then so be it, count me in officially.
Make no mistake, this was never about a willy-nilly mistake by a grumpy first-time editor. In that instant, I too might be so inclined to believe that only a slap on the wrist was deserved. Certainly "power tools" are required to fix this kind of slanderous damage to law-abiding public servants and others by wikipedia when it is misused this way by attacks dogs like TTAAC and Hidden Tempo.Lurking4thetimebeing (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm tired of fly-by socks. Please log into your regular account if you expect me to address your concerns. Don't avoid scrutiny, it's not respectable. Bishonen | talk17:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC).
A kitten for you!
Edit conflict? with moi? It would be our first conflict ever...
Appreciate, little Drmies, it'll be fine here. It's a mistake to think db eats them (they're more useful as capos) or even that Bishzilla will eat them (she's fond of pointing out that they're too small to be worth the trouble; possibly that's some kind of hint about giving her BIG food). Bishonen | talk19:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC).
And with good reason, her being Trump's wife and all. Perhaps you could put a decorative picture of yourself on your userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh crap, Melania. I have to dig out another ever-loving template? Why is my life so full of them? [Slouches off miserably to look for something suitable.] And then I'm to log it somewhere, no doubt about it. This is what I get for telling you you're only supposed to do fun stuff on Wikipedia. Isn't it? Bishonen | talk20:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
Yep, that's what you get. When you give someone advice, there's always the danger that they will take it. 0;-D And Bbb23, believe me, if I were really as good looking in RL as Melania is, you better believe I would have a picture of myself on my userpage. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
If I may ask a question, I see you logged the DS notice and the page says that these actions must be logged. However, I have seen users just place a DS notice on the talk page and that is it. I have seen actions against users based on those notices, even though it is not properly logged. Indeed, I found one on a page that was so far out there that I removed it. It seems to be that sometimes people place them there incorrectly. What is the correct procedure? I do think admins/editors need to be aware that if you place a template on a page it must be logged. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk)21:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It would sure be helpful if, when article are placed under strict Coffee™ restrictions, we also added extended confirmed editing restrictions so that the obvious socks, trolls, and agenda-driven SPAs would not have the upper hand in content disputes by their sheer numbers. So far, this has not been much of an issue at this article, but I would be surprised if it doesn't become one in the next few days. My poor head hurts just thinking about it. MrXasperation21:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd have to add, MrX, that Extended Confirmed Protection is not something we use lightly. It is supposed to be used rarely and only after standard Semi-Protection has failed. We certainly can't use it pre-emptively just in case there might be disruption. Obvious socks and trolls can and should be dealt with individually - and many are screened out anyhow by semi-protection. POV warriors are another problem, harder to deal with, but many of them would be eligible to edit under Extended Confirmed anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I hear you. Don't give up, an article like that needs reasonable voices (I am assuming you are one), and the DS actually do provide a good tool for removing POV warriors and other disrupters. I looked at that page and thought "this really needs help" but haven't had the time or energy to jump in myself. At least not right now. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, RexxS. I didn't notice, below, that you already had it in hand up here; also, I wanted to explain about admin discretion, because sometimes people (and, frankly, admins among them) seem to get the idea that an interminable AE discussion is supposed to happen before anything can be done in those areas. That's a mistake. Hey, I notice you didn't use any of those accursed anchors either! Bishonen | talk22:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
You're welcome, chère. Those anchors are particular to the DS page, so it's not obvious to editors how they are to be used. In those sort of cases, I prefer to use standard section links when explaining to others, as it's one less novel item for them to take in. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. I guess it seems from the links that only an admin can place the DS notice, and it must be logged. It appears some admins have been shirking their duties then. :) 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk)01:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I don’t see anything that restricts the tagging of Talk pages to admins; the links above appear to refer only to their applying protection, editing restrictions (1RR & the like), or edit-notices. In case your interpretation is correct, though, I hereby confess to having tagged Talk:Macedonians (Greeks) as falling under WP:ARBMAC and request that an administrator review same.—Odysseus147902:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Darouet and Sir Joseph, post-1932 American politics is a topic under standard discretionary sanctions. Please click on the link and... sigh... I've no idea how to use those kinds of ≠}{\¶‰¢¥¢‰¶ anchors. Make a search for "page restrictions". The idea of discretionary sanctions is that admins, can, at their own single admin discretion, place sanctions such as topic bans and page restrictions in an area. DS are emphatically not supposed to add an extra layer of bureaucracy, but on the contrary to make it simpler to do something about battlefield topics, so there has been no discussion of the kind you'd like to see, Darouet — even what you call the "discussion" above, which wasn't really one, wasn't needed. It was just me responding to a request from an editor, MelanieN, above, naturally after first assessing the situation for myself. The correct procedure is for an admin to decide on page restrictions, place a note about them on article talk, and log them here. And that log is also the nearest thing to a list of pages under page restrictions, Darouet. As far as I've seen, page restrictions are logged in a separate subsection for some topics ("Editing of Biographies of Living Persons", "Gamergate"), but not all. For instance, for American policics, everything is just logged chronologically, restricted users and restricted pages all mixed together. Adminning is a work in progress, performed by volunteers, so you get inconsistencies. However, it's always reasonably easy to find a particular article in the log for a given year — you can just make a search for its name. I hope this is clear. Bishonen | talk22:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
@Bishonen: thank you. I wasn't trying to indicate displeasure or put you on the defensive: I've been unsettled by editing behavior on the page and so I think additional oversight is ideal. I just wanted to be sure I understood the mechanics and could contribute to any discussion, if there was one. -Darouet (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
And, Darouet, just in case it wasn't clear from Bishonen's response: There does NOT have to be any discussion about placing an article under those restrictions. It is not a community decision. It does not require process or consensus. Any article relating to American politics since 1932 can be covered by the Discretionary Sanctions, at the sole discretion of any individual administrator. That process, authorized by the Arbitration Committee, exists for multiple subject areas that are likely to become battlegrounds, precisely so that action can be taken swiftly and without any bureaucracy. I could have done it myself, but I came here to ask Bishonen to consider it, because I am WP:INVOLVED at multiple articles relating to the the recent election so I do not take admin actions in those topics. (Bishonen may regard that as a convenient excuse to get me out of making any tough calls.... or to dump them on her!) --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I do! But I also admit my own failure to edit those topics and help keep them clean day-to-day — an ungrateful job which you stubbornly perform, Melanie — is a convenient excuse for keeping myself "uninvolved" so as to be able to admin them occasionally. Bishonen | talk22:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather have my job than yours, MelanieN. Sometimes it does feel like I'm unendingly explaining the abstruse wrinkles of Discretionary sanctions, and heck, of blocks, to inexperienced users. But that's OK, because a) I don't blame them, as discretionary sanctions are abstruse, and b) I'd much rather do that than to be unendingly answering stupid talkpage questions like you do. Especially that one, where the temptation to simply link to this would most likely get the better of me. Bishonen | talk16:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC).
Yeah, I don't find it hard to be nice to newbies. I can relate. I sometimes feel like a newbie myself. (What's an anchor? 0;-D) As for answering the same question over and over, I don't mind. I recall what my high school trig teacher used to say to his fourth period class, mocking himself: "I have explained this three times already today, why don't you understand?" --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey @Bishonen: this may be an unusual request, but one editor at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia has accused me of a DS violation, but also not reported me formally, and is asking me to check with an admin that they're correct. I'm a bit dubious because my edit is neither a revert nor an edit to a revert, but does modify content recently added by the same editor here. The implication seems to be that when they edit the contested topic that's fine, but when I do, it's a DS violation. I'd consider that obnoxious and an effort to scare other editors from working on the page. On the other hand if they're correct, they've been charitable not to report me, and I'll self-revert. It is my first edit on the SZ content in the article, and there's not an active edit war, so I assumed I should be fine. -Darouet (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Talk page protection
Is it possible to have my talk page indefinitely under extended-user protection? Whoever is trolling me keeps coming back as soon as protection expires so it will save everyone a lot more time if this can be made possible. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I see Barek took care of it, though only for a month. Now I suppose we may see very patient sleepers waiting for one month and then making 500 nonsense edits, like this character, who I indeffed for gaming (I'm not as soft as Dennis thinks). Bishonen | talk16:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC).
The only reason I asked for such an extreme measure is because even longer periods under that level of protection have been put in place but the person or persons who do this still come back. They are not saying anything particularly harsh, but it causes a lot of trouble for other editors who continuously revert him until an admin comes along. It is a cycle that has been going on for almost a year. Strangely, I know it is not CrazyAces so I have absolutely no idea why whoever it is feels inclined to keep this going on for so long.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Star + snack
The Barnstar of Good Humor
With all due respect to the lovely menagerie, this one goes to the H. sapiens sapiens—the "one'n only 'onen". And, because barnstars aren't especially delicious, a bite-sized loaf of banana bread. (Don't give 'zilla; 'frigeration not required.) RivertorchFIREWATER02:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
One'n only 'onen, hehehe. Thank you User:Rivertorch, it's nice to see you yourself on my page, with all due respect to your evil twin. Banana bread, delicious! [Bishonen hides the banana bread away from the socks.] I only hope Darwinbish isn't already in there, tunnelling around like a pacman and gorging herself. She thinks that's a very good joke whenever I get something tunnel-able to eat. Bishonen | talk11:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC).
No, it doesn't need an update saying Bigfoot definitely exists, which is what you've been trying for on the talkpage, P.I.M.S.. Please use reliable sources. This is not the way to find reliable sources! And please pay more attention to all the warnings and advice on your talkpage. I'm afraid so far you have simply been wasting other people's time — and you think it's getting annoying?[189]Bishonen | talk15:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC).
If you don't see any difference between Vanamonde's request and your pointy one, I can't help you. I'm too busy to start investigating a user who's completely unknown to me. Administrators are volunteers. You may be able to find some with more leisure at AE. Why do you keep changing your username? Bishonen | talk10:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC).
Please don't block me!!!!!!!!!!!!p.s. see my talk page.
I didn't know having book recommendations on y user page was bad. Thank you for the information it was very useful I didn't know the rules of Wikipedia so thank you for giving me a chance I probably should not have paniced and went overboard with the messages ..... Wordsighn (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
RexxS, can you advise the user? I went to Wikipedia:User Page Design Center/Help and collaboration/FAQ and looked at the tips. Unfortunately, the note at the top, "This page exists only to help users with the design of their pages, not to design it for them. For that, go to Wikipedia:User page design center/Help and collaboration/Trading spaces", turned out to link to a long defunct page. Wordsighn is so new that I suspect he needs more practical help than those tips (and that's probably why he came to me). I'm pretty sure there's some help to be had somewhere, but that's as far as I've got. Wordsighn, I'm stupid about that stuff, but I've got very smart talkpage watchers, RexxS and others. Please wait until one of them posts either here or on your own page. Bishonen | talk17:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC).
Yes, of course I can help, but I really need to know what Wordsighn wants. Perhaps if they looked around at other users' pages, they might find something they like and I could adapt it for them? User:Alarbus has an elegant minimalism about it. User:Giano has hidden links all over the image. Jack's userpage had lots of little flourishes. And so on. Multiple columns, different background colours, borders, drop shadows, etc. are all design features that can be used, but Wordsighn really needs to make some suggestions. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
This user popped up on my radar about a year or so ago, and notice that they still come to Wikipedia. [192] Would it be worth looking into a possible unblock considering it has been like 4 years now since they got blocked? I am asking you because it looks like you have had dealings in the past with the user. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87: Oh, that reminds me: I've got plenty of room to unhide Penyulap's hamster-powered barnstar at the top of the page again! Done... I don't think the wobbly TOC will interfere with it. I have indeed had dealings. I'll think about your suggestion and get back to you. Thanks for bringing it up. Bishonen | talk12:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC).
I've edited Bishonen occasionally in the past, but I don't really want to; COI, you know. Update on Penyulap: I've tried to get in touch with him, so far without success. Bishonen | talk17:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC).
Okay well thanks for trying, if he still comes around though I am sure he will read it eventually. As for Bishonen I don't really see COI being of issue there, if you have knowledge about the subject and can source it then it would be beneficial. You have been on Wikipedia awhile now so I feel that you could work with others when it comes to neutrality. This is just my opinion anyways, it doesn't have to be a bad thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Merry Merry
Season's Greetings, Bishonen! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season!MarnetteD|Talk16:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Funnily enough, today we had some people by the house singing Christmas carols, which is a first for me. I found it peculiar that, as a Canadian, my first experience with Carolers is in Indonesia, and they were Australian. A merry Christmas to you Bish (and Bishzilla et. al.) And a happy new year. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Just Chilling. When you ask for my views, do you just want my views, which you can certainly have, either here or on the UTRS page, or am I supposed to also deal with the user (unblock them, and discuss their draft page)? Or will you take care of that? When I softblocked them, they were called "Arabic Robotics", and I can't quite understand why there's no trace of the name change.
You know, I rather regret ever volunteering for UTRS, because I have a lot of trouble with the interface and the whole system, and didn't get any help when I asked for it the last time. (My own communication was at fault, no doubt.) After the current issue has been solved, I think I'll just un-volunteer. (Assuming I ever understand how to do that.) Regards, Bishonen | talk22:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
I, also, have had issues with the UTRS interface. Though the name change is puzzling, my inclination is for me to unblock the new name with a COI warning. Their article will then have to take its chances. Are you OK with this? Just Chilling (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine, Just Chilling. I get the impression the user's main reason for appealing to UTRS was to have their Draft:ِArabic Robotics undeleted — I deleted it as unambiguous promotion. But that may have been a bit hard. I don't mind at all if you undelete it, still as a draft, of course. Possibly they can get enough help with it to eventually make it reasonable for article space. Bishonen | talk23:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC).
Thank you, Just Chilling. I've now attempted to un-volunteer through the medium of an e-mail to utrs-admins@googlegroups.com. I think it may be more a place for computer nerds, not so much for the likes of me. Bishonen | talk17:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC).
LessHeard..? [Percy Bish Shelley is suitably impressed by the appearance of this towering presence from before his time.] The giant race before the flood is upon us!
Well then; the promis'd hour is come at last;
The present age of wit obscures the past:
Strong were our sires; and as they fought they writ,
@Bish: Have the sanctions on @Soham321 expired, or been lifted? Please see this, which would fall under the old sanction. Is there an easy way to find out what active sanctions apply on a particular user? Nothing urgent, enjoy the holidays. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I came here to offer some off topic thoughts after reading your comment at a current a AE thread. But first I have to thank you for the double-take, followed by the laugh. I've never seen the slanted TOC before. Did I enter the lair of Batman's enemies? Anyway....
I'd like us to make reforms that
Block editing until complained-about eds make a reply
After said reply, encourage unilateral admin action
Condemn admins who make "no action" closings because both sides are in the wrong or by dismissing bad behavior by classifying it as a "content" dispute
Encourages sanctioned eds to appeal their own sanction and purge any badge of shame from their record, but deals harshly with any appeal based on how wrong the other party might have been
Readily dish out sanctions to eds who vent about others without diffs (and use 50-word limit without diffs as a likely red flag)
Maybe other things; idea is to renew the DS/AE process by nurturing a culture of Clean hands. I'm interested in general goals or tangible ideas for other ways to make DS/AE work better. Your thoughts?
Welcome to my page, @NewsAndEventsGuy: WP:AE, though very much run by admins, is an arbitration committee page, so a proposal for reform should probably be put on... hmm... somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. I feel cynical about changing human nature or internet customs by either encouragement or condemnation, though. When it comes to appeals based on how wrong the other party might have been, and venting without diffs, they pretty much dominate AE, and the most common reason for it is WP:CIR. Did you happen to notice the new request, posted on the page after my complaint, and well enough illustrating what I was talking about..? For my part I feel more like going with TNT than reform. (And then setting up a new page for appeals only, because sunlight and publicity are essential for bans by cowboy admins. Input from the community, and from more admins.)
Admins ought probably to be more ready to trust their own discretion, and mete out sanctions. But that said, there's often a respectable reason why the most knowledgeable admins don't: they're involved. Many (most?) Indian admins edit the slough-of-despond of caste pages, and many American admins edit the major American political articles. It's often in practice left to European admins to "admin" both areas — even though they're statistically less likely to be knowledgable about them, and consequently less confident in handing out sanctions. A bit of a cleft stick, that.
did you notice that my TOC not only slants, but wobbles? Oh, is that what it was? I thought I was just overdoing it with our new espresso machine.... Yes, I generally agree with your description of the state of affairs and that the arbs would have to debate any changes. Its my understanding incoming arbs are interested in exploring reform ideas and am trying to (optimistically) marshal my own thoughts to contribute. Interesting observation about admins shying away due to conflict of interest issues. Maybe the admins could articulate some guidelines to encourage them to act. If did blow it up and start over, what are the general goals it should strive for? What are the chances we'd end up with something demonstrably different than what we have now? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Bish: Ahh! A lovely Yellowstone-like pic by MONGO!! The meditating owl in the silent wilderness is amazing too. On AE/AN/etc.... I see SpacemanSpiff is now hauled by @Junosoon in three venues ANI, AN and AE. Ludicrous, frankly. The edit history of OP filing the cases, is just rapid fire edits, each separated by some 1 to 4 minutes, of major deletions/disruptions of a high traffic ARBIPA-space article, without any consensus or serious discussion on the talk page. These ignore wikipedia content guidelines. @SpacemanSpiff, as usual, made the right call.
The ability of upset editors to post the same issue/appeal at a rapid fire pace on AE/ANI/AN noticeboards needs a rethink. Due process objective for the upset editor is important, but so are three other objectives: [a] the time and effort of admins, [b] the time and effort of non-admin editors hauled up, and [c] the goals of the wikipedia project. Time is a zero-sum issue. It may be time to consider, if there aren't already, rules on [1] case consolidation, that is cases by the same editor cannot be posted on more than one admin forum [2] cool off rule between appeal(s) on the same case; that is, if someone is sanctioned or blocked, the first appeal can be immediate; but if the appeal is denied, thereafter, the editor must wait for 24 hours before second appeal; if that is denied, wait for 72 hours before third appeal on a different board, and so on. This may help all concerned. Just some suggestions, but I confess I am really clueless about AE/AN guidelines and history. I also confess that I am far more concerned about the three objectives above, far less about the due process for upset disrupters after the first appeal. Happy new year to you and all your talk page stalkers, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Was that MONGO's geyser you saw, Ms Sarah? I'm never sure when exactly the pic changes. The owl is there for the long haul, though — at least until the horse comes ambling back into the summer meadow. You make very good points; won't you add your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, the last section? I'll say one thing, though: I feel both admins and non-admins who are hauled before those boards could often afford to be a bit cooler about it, and not take so much time and effort to respond. If you can see the report is without merit, then likely enough the uninvolved admins can, too. Of course it's harder to ignore a report if you're not used to being hauled up and criticized, and you may feel your rep is on the line. But you note how brief SpacemanSpiff is in his response at both ANI and AE, and as for me, being a very abusive admin, I'm so used to being reported that I sometimes barely reply at all — though of course it depends on the quality of the report. Kautilya3, I'm glad to hear welcomelaws works. It looks awfully long and a bit overwhelming to me. Bishonen | talk18:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC).
Maybe we should have a word limit at AE, while allowing people who post to their word limit to request a specific number of additional words. We could instruct admins to routinely deny such requests except in complicated cases where the first posting has high signal-to-noise. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Roter Glühwein
@Bish: Yeah, geyser with steam going one way, clouds the other. Pretty. You are spot on about the time and effort if one is not used to being hauled up.... may be it is the process, may be it is human nature, may be it is just lack of good cup of something wonderful like tea/coffee/glühwein. May be it is inner geyser of the frustrated affected parties venting some steam. May be it is the urge to either be silent or say all that must be said. Will post that para; is this the right section, or some other, or should I start a new section? @NewsAndEventsGuy: there is a 500 word limit already at AE, if I remember right. The archives suggest filers typically don't care!! Are you suggesting the edit box should automatically count and force this limit (or just display the first 500 words)... that could be interesting if our software wizards can figure out how to do so? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
That's the section I meant, Sarah, but if you think it's veering off from the subject and/or the header is mysterious, I suppose you might start a new one. A new section typically gets more attention, I think — people notice it. Bishonen | talk20:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC).
@Sarah, absolutely, the loquacious droners should be cut off. In my view, the project would benefit if we jettison all those lacking the self-discipline to stay within a limit, because such people probably fall under WP:CIR.... this assumes, of course, that they know about the limit. I post at AE from time to time, but I did not. Maybe that's so obvious that my failure to realize it means that (((I))) fall under CIR, but whose counting? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Questionable IP actions
I had a brief interaction with User:SlitherioFan2016, in which I tried to explain that they should not continue the behavior that was currently leading them down the road to being blocked. Shockingly, they are now indef blocked. However, before this, they left a message on my talk page. Standard Christmas stuff, but as I had washed my hands of the issue I removed it because I didn't want to encourage further correspondence. Twice now, an IP editor has come in and restored it. Now, I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I have suspicions that this might be SlitherioFan2016 editing from an IP address. No IP editor took this much of an interest in my talk page before this, and the double reverts from two different IPs makes me wonder. Do you have any suggestions? If SlitherioFan2016 is indeed socking, how do I go about requesting a check user? Obviously I don't want to make a false claim, but this is just too coincidental for me to let go. Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Now another sock, unrelated to SlitherioFan2016, has tried to get my talk page deleted randomly. I'm a bit confused as to what has drawn all of these vandals to my talk page all of a sudden... --Tarage (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
It won't profit you to request a CU; the CUs will never connect an account with an IP, for privacy reasons. I've blocked both IPs for 48 hours as obvious ducks. The account has also been blocked and was, guess what, brand new. As for "all of these vandals", I expect they're all one person. Shall I semi your page for a week or so? That'll protect it against both IPs and new accounts. Please reply soonest, as I'm about to shut down for the night. Bishonen | talk00:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC).
Sorry I did not reply fast enough. Either way I'm fine for now. I'll let you or another admin know if things get worse. Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy New Year ...
... dear Bishonen. Will the molybdomantic result be shaped like a crown, as Lasse saw it, meaning you will be Queen next year (or just a book, as Anna saw it, meaning you will be spending another year editing Wikipedia)? ---Sluzzelintalk18:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello Sluzzelin, happy new year to you too! As long as it's not shaped like a ?=≠}{\)(/&%€# handheld device, I'm good. I just donated my tablet to my techie son, who had some peculiar use for it... remote control for his camera, I think. Bless him, just as long as he takes it off my hands. Our Molybdomancy article is quite interesting: apparently the shapes are to be interpreted "symbolically", e. g. the shape of a horse would mean I'll get a new car. LOL... you'd think the shape of a car was easier for the lead to assume, wouldn't you — why go round via the difficult shape of a frigging horse! Montanabw, if you tried molten lead divination and were pleased to see it predicted a new horse for you, I'm sorry to say no, it didn't, all it meant was a car! Disappointing, I know. Bishonen | talk20:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC).
Hate to bother you with this but I could use help nipping a possible wikihounding in the bud. My goal in writing you is not enforcement, just a warning so this does not grow into anything bigger (hopefully). Specifically, I think My very best wishes (talk·contribs) has hounded me to the essay WP:Wikilawyering and I explained the reasons for my belief at his talk page. In reply, MVBW simply purged my comment with the dismissive edit summary "if you disagree with my edits, please explain why on talk page of the corresponding article". I'm aware of WP:OWNTALK so the fact he deleted the comment is not the issue. The problem is that I laid out what I believe is pretty clear evidence that I was hounded to that page, and MVBW has disruptively ignored the polite question that concluded my comment -- "Setting aside the merits of my bold edit, can you please explain how you managed to appear there so soon after I made that change?"
Under WP:WIKIHOUNDING, the merits of one's edits are not the issue. It's the stalking and bugging and annoying that is so effective at driving away editors. I'd like MVBW to answer the polite question about how they managed to appear someplace they have never been just 30 min after my edit. The merits of the edit is a separate issue. To their credit, they did start a talk thread at that essay page, but I have not yet read it because the merits of the edit are far less important than the respect and trust that are so essential to collaborative efforts at consensus. Might you have a word with us, after looking the matter over? Thanks for thinking about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, the "User contributions" button is there for a purpose; there is nothing wrong with somebody clicking on it on your page, or even with going on to click on one of your contributions to take a look, even if that contribution is on a page the person has never edited before. (I do that all the time, when I'm either concerned about, or simply interested in, somebody's edits.) The question isn't whether MVBW has turned up at a page you have recently edited, but whether they have followed you from place to place and joined discussions on multiple pages or topics you have edited, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to you. (The italicized bits are verbatim from WP:WIKIHOUNDING.) I can't see that MVBW has done any of that, or even has put forth anything like a bud that wants "nipping". You made a bold edit to the essay, MVBW reverted it, with an explanation (a good explanation IMO) in the edit summary. The next thing that needed to happen, per the highly respected essay WP:BRD, would be for you, if you wanted to stand by the edit, to start a discussion on talk. Instead you went to MVBW's talk and accused him, in a roundabout way, of acting improperly. After removing your post on their talk, MVBW started an article talk discussion themselves, which was nice of them, you know, as it was actually your job. I'm afraid I don't understand your reaction at all; not your insistence that the merits of your edit don't come into it and perhaps least of all your statement that you haven't even read MVBW's article talkpage post, instead giving priority to going to an admin to talk about hounding. I suggest you go read it now and, if you're still interested in the matter, respond. Bishonen | talk18:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC).
I'm glad we agree that he (almost instantly) followed my contribs to a place (he'd never been before); and you're correct that there are no further details with which one might analyze the interaction. My intent, before he started that thread, was to start my own and call attention at talk for WP:3RR and WP:3RRN, and I will carry on with that plan as time allows. FYI, I'm reserving the option of revisiting this example if any additional evidence should emerge which suggestgs the possibility of a problem. Thanks for your time, though we disagree. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I see... I think. Thank you for raising this, GSS-1987. You know, I have trouble even understanding how the templates you link work. I see he created a whole heap of them, so I think I'll just ping a couple of admins who are more at home with the subjects. @RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff: might one of you like to take care of this? Bishonen | talk11:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC).
I usually stay away from Template deletions unless they fall under the G criteria for speedy, I don't deal with Tx deletion rationales, though I think in this case the couple mentioned here may classify for G2 as I can't see them being anything more than, "See, I can make templates" kind of actions. GSS-1987, if you think something can be speedied then please tag them per WP:CSD and any admin can perform the deletions, others will have to go throu WP:TfD. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff11:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff: Thank you for your responce, Actuly I was not sure which G criteria for speedy I need to request so thank you for your suggestion and have a very Happy New Year. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I think I spoke too soon. The first temlate can't be deleted G2 because it is in use. The appropriateness is a different question altogether, so a TfD might be needed. Also, why is a religious symbol being used in a geographic template? —SpacemanSpiff12:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking and not only in geographic templates even in music and biographic related templates too. I have replaced that symbol on few stub templates and still doing on others. I have not yet requested G2 on the first one but there are some more which fall under G2 so am working on those at the moment. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I am sorely tempted to invoke IAR and delete the most pointless of these, but going to TfD might be best, just to be safe. These are less test pages in the strictest sense, and more just an outpouring of pointless and not-thought-out templates; for which, regrettably, we have no CSD criterion. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted that one, as for the task force, you may want to check with Cyphoidbomb or others interested in Punjabi cinema and at WT:FILM if that should be kept or sent for deletion (I'm guessing that task forces get discussed at their project before being created). I notice that the Khanda (Sikh symbol) has been spammed there too, sort of like putting a Cross or Star of David in a Hollywood project.—SpacemanSpiff13:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
SpacemanSpiff: I'm not so familiar with the guidlines for creating WikiProjects but I can see many of the WikiProjects and other pages created by the user looks incompleted and unused. I tired but can't find any discussion for creating task force project. As per his behaviour and edits I think he was here just to prove Punjab as a Sikh homeland but I think he forget to check the census report and the use of Khanda (Sikh symbol) everywhere related to Punjab seems like a part of his mission, In one of his comment he said The Khanda is a symbol of the Sikh nation and Punjab, which represents the Punjabi and Sikh people and their homeland. I think am done with the templates so moving to concentrate on other pages he created. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Purple flowers/weeds or whatever
Posting this here to see if one of your 2 million talkpage watchers has any clue what these purple flowers are...I've never been able to find anyone who knew. Happy New Year!--MONGO17:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
And there you go, MONGO! See what clever talkpage stalkers I have. Acroterion please give my regards to Mrs A. Very pretty, Liatris. I've never met them IRL, which is explained by their being North Americans, I guess. Bishonen | talk18:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC).
Acroterion and his wife are probably super smart Reptilians...Masters of the Universe, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc. cause I've asked around alleged experts and they said "purple flowers". Thanks Mr. A and to his wife especially!--MONGO18:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Very fine Rivertorch...see master of Bishzilla, they might have these Jurassic looking flowers somewhat nearby afterall.--MONGO18:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh wow, I have these in my garden, although I confess that the name escaped me since I planted them long ago. Like just about everything else in my garden, they're chosen because the bees love them. There are side effects to having a garden filled with plants intended as food for pollinators - I had a stand-off with a hummingbird last summer when trimming some shrubbery. Definitely the coolest thing that happened to me in the past year. Risker (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Mme A complains that they don't grow for her, but it may be that the rabbits, voles and groundhogs like them too. Considering she has no trouble growing anything else I think the critters are the real problem. @Risker: last April I was fixing the house and heard angry buzzing. I turned around and there was a male hummingbird two feet from my head to complain that I hadn't put out the hummingbird food yet. They remember food sources from year to year and they aren't shy about making demands. I had new food out within the hour. By August we had 6 to 8 little demanding birds tanking up on sugar water. Acroterion(talk)19:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
They tend to self-seed in my garden adjacent to the border where they're supposed to be. (Liatris, I mean, not hummingbirds.) If I were more punctual in my weeding, I might inadvertently pull them before realizing what they are and moving them back where they belong. RivertorchFIREWATER19:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
It's so nice to get a notification that I have seven new messages, and none of them turn out to be from <long-term vandal name redacted> and/or the kind stalkers who revert them. Happy new year, everybody, and thank you for sorting out the purple flowers and also the stroppy hummingbirds. Especially it's cool to get all that while MONGO's purple Liatris are still featured in the edit notice (which will probably change soon now). Bishonen | talk21:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC).
Thank you for your message and taking the time to explain.
1. I did not knowingly violate 1RR. I thought that meant 1 edit per day only but GoodDay seems to explain that it is not that strict but follows another rule. Still, I never tested that to the limit.
2. There is no clear stable version but the one that I am suggesting is among the more stable of the non-stable versions.
3. The version that I proposed is very much a compromise version. I discovered that the Donald article is very heated and discussed more than once to withdraw from the article, which I did, with the noted exception of fixing the prose and grammar to the first sentence or two, at which time I would completely withdraw. I have followed that for a few weeks but even one sentence is difficult to nail down in that article.
3a. There are reasonable rationale that Donald is not a politician having never held elected political office before. Therefore, mention that he is an American politician is wrong. However, in the interest of compromise and de-escalation, something that many editors in that article are not doing, I said that forget about the politician issue. Let's assume that it is there. If so, then fix the sentence structure and make it not redundant. That is really being accommodating and conciliatory, far more than the other editors. You should recognize this.
4. You wrote that I have not discussed the matter since December 20. Millions of Wikipedia users have not either. In fact, NOBODY has. The last discussion was in archive 40. At that discussion, NOBODY disagreed that redundant prose is good and nobody disputed that one version was redundant.
4a. To refresh your memory or explain to you for the first time, consider the following sentence. Bioshonen is a Japanese businessman and a Japanese businessperson. Isn't that redundant? Trump is an American politician and the President. That is redundant because the only claim to being a politician is being President. However, if you separate it into 2 sentences, it is not glaringly redundant because the second sentence expands on the first.
Once again, it is not "my preferred version" but merely a compromise to put my feelings aside and concentrate only on the quality of the prose and withdraw from the article otherwise (and withdraw from the article totally after the first 1-2 sentences are corrected in the medium term).
Your preferred compromise which you have no consensus for, then. That's the last straw; I have topic banned you from Donald Trump and related pages. Please see your own page. Bishonen | talk09:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC).
Mistake
Cooperation happens when the boss and the subordinate truly agree to work together.
Your action has stifled desire to work in Wikipedia, for example in the Boeing 717 article. You write that "it won't be a great hardship". This is where you are wrong about human psychology. Cooperation is better.
Here is where I feel I have been hurt.
1. One of your first sentence is "you have been sanctioned for disruptive editing". This is not true. The non-redundant prose by having 2 sentences instead of one repetitive sentence is still there. This has not caused disruption.
Furthermore, plenty of people edit and don't add talk page comments. The easier to understand rule would be that all edits, except typos, must have discussion by the editor wanting any change.
3. I have adopted a truly neutral position. I do not take sides to what to include in the sentence, whether Trump is a politician, television personality, etc. I do have an opinion but have limited myself only to prose correction in the first paragraph of the lede, not even the whole lede.
4. I am truly hurt by your sanctions and the permanent mark it leaves me.
However, I hear what you are saying in that you want to apply sanctions.
Therefore, I suggest the following:
1. You remove this sanction as if it never existed.
2. I will voluntarily not edit at all for a week for any article. This will show self control. Believe me, this really would show willpower.
3. I will be more familiar with the rules. I did not know this technical rule about commenting on the talk page because I thought it was a settled matter after archive 40 and NOBODY else raised a discussion in the talk page after archive 40 until those comments (which support me) hours before your sanction.
Thank you for your kind consideration of not sanctioning me. Please undo it. I will not disappoint you for doing so. In fact, if you do so, I will make extra effort to repay such thoughtful action by diving back into Wikipedia and make stuff good, especially that Boeing 717 article (after a week of self imposed total self control of not editing). Usernamen1 (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Usernamen1:, I do understand that any kind of sanction hurts, beyond the mere inability to edit a certain article (which you probably don't mind about so much, am I right?), and I was sorry to have to do it. But you were actually being extremely stubborn. Your changes to the lede kept being reverted, by different people, and both Melanie and I warned you, so you surely aren't going to tell me you didn't know that others disagreed with your version. It's really not about not understanding a technical rule, but about insisting on your own version beyond what's reasonable (yes, it's your version — your compromise version — and it has now been reverted again).
I'm not interested in testing your willpower; I don't see that it would be any benefit to Wikipedia if you stay away for a week, rather the contrary. I have a countersuggestion: if you undertake voluntarily to not edit Donald Trump or related pages for the next few months, I'll lift the sanction "as if it never existed", as you say, including removing it from the log. No permanent mark. How's that? You wouldn't have to do anything of an official nature: just state below whether or not you accept my suggestion. Bishonen | talk15:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC).
Kind request
I, hereby, kindly ask for your reconsideration of the topic ban. Please consider the following:
1. I have not had bitterness but showed extreme restraint in not editing or looking at Wikipedia for a week. Ok, I think I looked at it twice over the past few days but only for a moment.
2. Your statement that "I don't see that it would be any benefit to Wikipedia if you stay away for a week, rather the contrary." shows that your actions actually harm Wikipedia because it take the lifeblood of good editors when you take action against them.
3. The most important is that a week later, the grammatically correct and non-redundant version of the Donald article is just what I said. My suggested version IS the stable, consensus version. It has remained for a week, not the bad prose, redundant version, which is now a past, no-consensus version. My suggested version is that if you have the word "politician" (and I have taken no stance on that in recent weeks), you cannot have President-elect or President in the same sentence. So you are punishing me for doing the right thing and encouraging people who did the wrong thing.
4. There has been absolutely no support for a redundant, bad prose version. Many are fighting over content, but nobody is supporting the bad prose. There are a few people mentioning about redundancy and support my suggestion. Remember, I have disengaged from all politics and only concentrate on the prose of first 1-3 sentences of the lede. If there is a model for constructive behavior in this article, I am the one.
5. I was never warned or made aware of the offense which caused the topic ban, namely "you're not supposed to re-add a disputed version without first getting consensus for it through discussion on the talkpage". I did leave commentary in the edit summary. Others changed stuff without talk page discussion and are in clear violation yet I am the only person among 7 billion people that is topic banned for the Donald article, as far as I can see. This is not right!
5a. The talk page has some consensus FOR my suggestions and no support at all for wanting redundancy (nobody said "Americans are stupid, you have to repeat and be redundant" or "this should be the exception for redundancy")
Please make this a positive experience for me by removing the topic ban. This will energize me in Wikipedia writing. I have no desire to wage political battles in that Donald article, unlike many.
Thank you for your kind consideration of my request. Please be a nice person and unban me. The result will be a happy situation and you can be sure that I'm not going to jump back into that article....for sure! Usernamen1 (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I didn't read your message carefully enough. When you say "you can be sure that I'm not going to jump back into that article....for sure!", is that actually your voluntary undertaking to stay away from it (and other Trump-related articles) for three months? You only have to say "yes" or "no" below. Bishonen | talk04:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC).
But not absolute refraining. My intent is to merely and occasionally remind others, if the non-consensus, redundant, bad prose version creeps up, then I plan to remind them of the prose error. (Note that my suggested version or similar versions have stayed on the article for a week and before that was on for a while (with others making edits but keeping the same non-redundant sentence structure). I don't get involved in the politics, merely the prose....and the prose of just the first 2 or so sentences. As far as voluntarily staying away from Trump-related articles, sure. As far as voluntarily staying away from political aspects of the Donald article, sure. As far as voluntarily staying away from prose issues in other parts of the article, sure. And if users come out and state "I want a bad prose article and want crappy writing for the 1st paragraph of the lede" and everyone else says the same thing, sure. It's crazy to punish me when there are so many aggressive and fighting editors in that article. Think about that! Usernamen1 (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Please allow this and lift the topic ban. I now realize that you do not have the power to remove all traces of it because then you would have to oversight all of our conversations and many edits over different user talk pages. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Usernamen, the reason I topic banned you was that you zoomed in on this one thing, which was never an "error", and insisted on it to the point of disruption and beyond, in defiance of consensus and the page rules, and kept "reminding" people that they must accept your version. I won't have any more of that, sorry. You can't come back in any shape or form to that talkpage. If you won't agree to that voluntarily, please take your appeal of the ban to either WP:AE, WP:AN, or WP:ARCA, per the instructions in my ban notice. As for "not removing all traces", no ordinary editor nor people outside Wikipedia would be able to see it any more. Let it go. You think an admin would be digging around for traces of it in the log history? Nobody will. Anyway, please stop this now. I'm going back to bed. Take your appeal to one of the boards I've mentioned, if you like. Bishonen | talk05:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC).
Sorry to wake you up. You must have a different kind of Wikipedia because my Wikipedia does not have any kind of alarm to wake me up. Sorry also to have made you angry. But please note that my suggested version has become the consensus and stable version for a full week. My suggested version was "whatever you want but don't have redundant, bad prose". Others agree.
No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator
I am having trouble understanding your suggestion. You mentioned WP:AE but that says that they will act only if you agree to lift a topic ban. If so, then why go through them when you have to approve it whether I go to you or go to them (who will then go to you)? Again, I voluntarily agree to stay away from all Trump related articles and the Trump article itself, with the exception, that if people forget about bad prose in the first 2-3 sentences, I will see if they have considered the current consensus version WITH respect to prose and non-redundancy....choose whatever political contents you want but write it in a decent way. Again, sorry for making you angry but you have the final say whether I appeal or not. Funny how Wikipedia works. You are the decision maker and there is no real appeal because you must give the ok for any change. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Is this trolling deliberate (and hence disruptive), or through an inability to read (and hence incompetent)? 'Shonen is far too soft on both disruption and incompetence, but others are not, and I will not treat your behaviour here with kid gloves. So take this seriously: The text in WP:AC/DS #sanctions.modify states "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). (my emphasis). Do you not understand the word "or" in English? Or did you just stop reading after the first option? The "Important notes" clarify that an appeal will succeed if there is a "clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN." For somebody who spends so much time arguing about the niceties of English grammar, you certainly seem to have little comprehension of what is written about the sanction. Now, either take your complaint to WP:AE for uninvolved admins to decide it; or take your complaint to WP:AN for uninvolved editors to decide it. You actually have other options such as wasting Arbitrators' time at WP:ARCA (which will end badly for you), or accepting that the sanction was properly placed for your blatant edit-warring after a warning on a page under discretionary sanctions. But you've had to chance to appeal here, and it's been politely declined: if you post here again and mention the topic that you are banned from, I'll take you to WP:AE myself with a request to have you kicked off the site indefinitely. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
RexxS, your threat is taken seriously. Your threat to have me kicked off the site indefinitely is very aggressive. That sort of attitude will get you the "yes, sir" but is not a service to Wikipedia. Like a concentration camp prisoner, I say "yes sir".
Bishonen, your behavior is mixed. In some ways, very effective in getting understanding and cooperation. In some ways, you shouldn't get up from bed to answer but wait until the next day. In some ways, your warning was unclear because I did not violate 1RR so your lack of precise sanction notice comments was a disservice to your good reputation. Do not get discouraged in administering but also know that some people, including me, see sanctions as a badge of disgrace and clear discussion with the user, if they are open to it, can lead to long term good behaviour, rather than resentment.
My plans is that this whole thing has soured me on Wikipedia. I do not plan to edit anytime soon, not even 2 non-political articles that I had high hopes to make them featured article quality. Usernamen1 (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Usernamen1: Your warring over that lede was stunningly lame and time-wasting, your refusal to hear what you are being told is hard to comprehend, and the support at AE for your topic ban was unanimous. You need to drop it now. If you don't drop the subject of your topic ban, and you continue distracting productive people who have much better things to do with their time than listening to your incessant complaining, I will block you for disruption. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry you've been soured on Wikipedia, Usernamen1; I hope it's temporary. And, while I can understand a bit of venting when you were topic banned, and again when your appeal was declined, you need to stop souring other people's Wikipedia experience. No more crap about concentration camps or the like. Wikipedia isn't anything like Nazi Germany or South Africa during the Boer War. It's just a website which you're free to edit or not. BTW, I now withdraw my rejected offer to remove the topic ban and the log note on my own in exchange for a voluntary self-ban by you from Trump-related pages. It's a little dodgy to tamper with the log anyway, and I was going out on a limb for you — I'm done with that. Altogether, since I have already declined the appeal you made here on my page, I don't see that you have any further business here. Thank you. Bishonen | talk11:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC).
I do see that I have further business here and that is to offer you a cookie. I do not agree with you completely but I do see that you don't have the aggressive, bullying attitude that some administrators have.
Many administrators used to edit before getting their administrative power. Then they either edited as part of a secret plan to get administrative tools or became corrupt that they didn't feel they had to edit anymore. They then became bullies. Such description is a sizable chunk of administrators. Another chunk are those that are inactive. Yet another chunk are editors and do not do much administration. Only a few are calm ombudsmen that try to be the positive face of Wikipedia.
One part that could stand improvement is that you never explained your 1RR topic ban clearly. After your January 3rd message to me, you topic banned me on January 4th even though I edited once, I believe, not twice. And there was never any consideration that my suggestions held for over a week when I voluntarily stayed away from Wikipedia.
My foray into getting non-redundant prose was a compromise to Wikipedia warriors but they did not take it. I wrote that, for a moment, stop edit warring and just concentrate on good prose. I became the first to do that. Those who supported saying Donald was a politician should have taken that as a clue that they could get their way through good prose (bad prose would be one reason to eliminate the word politician). But in Wikipedia, it's becoming clear to me that compromise doesn't work, just gets you punished. Another problem with Wikipedia is that consensus is voluntary. Compromise should be a required part of consensus. That would be a significant change in Wikipedia. Should there be a WP:CompromiseIsRequired?
At times, you've shown that you have some great potential. Work on that and fight the bullies...and enjoy that cookie. I do plan to exit Wikipedia, at least for now and this week and maybe longer. We'll see. I just don't have the urge to fix those 2 non-political articles that I had planned. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh... not for a cookie, surely, Boing. Considering I've already eaten it, I've unblocked. But now seriously don't come back here again, Usernamen1, no matter your errand, and don't discuss Donald Trump or the article or your topic ban again anywhere on Wikipedia, other than in the context of an appeal at WP:ARCA. (I really don't think such an appeal would be worth your or others' time, mind you, after admins at WP:AE have unanimously upheld the ban.) Bishonen | talk11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC).
Well, if it had just been a cookie I wouldn't have blocked... but there was more about his topic ban and that bloody lede sentence argument again. Still, if you're happy to unblock, that's fine with me, but I think RexxS is right that you're too soft sometimes ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
measurements against User:207.251.43.98 because of this edit, in which my work on Indo-Aryan migration theory is being compared to Mein Kampf, and his related racistic remarks ("he presents the Western Academic (race-based) view"; "your main impression of being informed is to accept Western theory and negate indigenous theories");
and also for a warning for User:Crawford88, because of his response in which he calls the expected responses to pov-pushing "a shit-storm": "I encourage you to try and edit some pieces of this article.. and see for yourself how large a shit-storm it causes."
The IP is ranting against the present state of the article, insisting that it's incorrect, meanwhile arguing for an Indigenous view on the Indo-Aryans, which is evidently fringe, without presenting any sources, despite a request to do so. This way, the talkpage is not used to improve the article, but to rant against mainstream scholarship and the editors who try to present this scholarship to a larger audience, and consuiming their valuable volunteer time. And Crawford88 does nothing to stop this rant, but, on the contrary, seems to take sides with this IP. Enough of these rants by people who have no interest in scholarship or creating a reliable encyclopedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!12:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad you came straight to me, JJ. Topic bans of IPs are rare, for obvious reasons, but this IP does seem to have been used by the same individual for a long time, so possibly a topic ban might be useful, if they should persist in personalising disputes in that way. Hopefully a strong warning might work. And a discretionary sanctions alert. Bishonen | talk14:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC).
Because topic bans are on people, not IP addresses, but we can never be sure what person is behind which IP address, since they can change. So practically, a topic ban on IPs is impossible to enforce consistently. 2600:1003:B002:A673:3A39:BAF8:7DF4:AFDA (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I remember reading here about some tool to check range contribs but I don't remember when it was so I can't even find it. Can you point me in the right direction? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff04:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Here, for IPv4, SpacemanSpiff. You can check IPv6 too — the long forbidding-looking ones — those ranges are actually easier to contribs-check and block, once you get into it, but it takes a little preparation. First you have to enable or tick something in your prefs... looking... I've done it, but now I can't find it. @Johnuniq and RexxS: help! Where is it? What does Space need to tick? And one of you might as well tell him what to do next, too, if you will. I'm sure you'll explain it better than me. Space, it's really worth being able to identify and if necessary block those ranges, so don't give up. Bishonen | talk16:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC).
HELP!!!!!!Bishonen. I got hacked and now im being blamed for vandalisum . What should i do i have hpalready been blocked temporarily but I'm afraid it will happen again . Should I make a new user id? Wordsighn (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hacked, Wordsighn? Do you mean you have let somebody else get access to your password, or to your phone/computer while logged in? I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe your account was actually "hacked". Secondly, how do you mean, you're being blamed for vandalism? I don't see any vandalism warnings on your talkpage, nor any block on your account. Where are you being blamed for vandalism? What account are you talking about? I can't see these things, you know. You have to tell me. And it sounds like you need to read WP:SOCK, too. You're not allowed to have more than one account. Bishonen | talk15:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC).
OK so I hit the "change it" button on the template for my user page hoping to fill it in when I saw this thing that said you received a message or something like that and it said that I'd I vandalize Wikipedia one more time I would be blocked and that a temporary block was on me that made me think that I was hacked . Wordsighn (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
No, sorry, Chère. Wordsighn has a template {{New user bar}} on his user page as a start point for editing. If Twinkle were enabled, I'd have guessed at an accidental click on the warning button on his own user page. Anyway, I'm happy that it's gone now. Perhaps we'll never know what the problem was. --RexxS (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
1) I have been trying to REMOVE the biased phrase "Roe protects a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is viable, which anti-abortion activists contend is at the 20-week mark" without adding the other side's POV language. I have also included the widely used terminology "pro-life" and "pro-choice". This is obviously not biased as the language is balanced, unlike Neutrality's wording "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights", which you can see is not balanced. I have also added a dispute tag so other users can contribute. Please withdraw the accusations that have been made against me. As you can see, I have been seeking neutral and unbiased language which is the exact opposite of pushing POV. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, you have been topic banned for breaking the page restrictions at Political positions of Donald Trump by repeatedly reinserting your preferred version without consensus, despite being repeatedly warned about the rules. Apparently you didn't look up the explanation of what a "topic ban" is, although I urged you to, since you have already violated it with this edit. If you do that again, you will be blocked. I noticed you had some trouble with the formatting of your appeal at WP:AE — I certainly don't blame you, I hate templates — perhaps one of my talkpage watchers could help format it? (Don't worry about the lack of notification to me, it doesn't matter.) Bishonen | talk20:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC).
Well, just because I've done so many warnings for the first topic ban breach, I've made a principle of it, for fairness: whoever they are, they get one for free. (That is, iff I'm the first admin to see it, so don't count on it, mofos!) Doesn't really do any harm, does it? They don't get two! Bishonen | talk23:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC).
Bishonen, with this long overdue sanction User:Ontario has got off lightly, "abortion, broadly construed" is not broad enough. She has done substantial damage to electoral systems pages but, far from being shown the door (cf.RexxS [194]), it was her principle opponent (moi) who after sweating blood for six months decided to seek the exit; despite two ANIs, two DRNs, and some admin warnings on her talk page, admins would not block, not even for a day (apart from a 3RR block which I provoked just to see what would happen). RexxS is so right, a couple of judicious blocks of a day, a week, a month, then would have saved an enormous amount of editor time. All Ontario's electoral systems edits are partisan, all of them; sooner or later they are all going to have to be undone. The point also should be made that they are of a piece with Ontario's anti-abortion edits: the introduction of proportional representation in Canada would make an abortion ban impossible - that's the only reason Ontario is interested in electoral systems. But thanks at least for this ban. --BalCoder (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
BalCoder, I understand that a big problem has been that your ANI and DS filings haven't had much attention. That's how it sometimes goes on a volunteer website: the subject is pretty abstruse, and probably non-Canadians hesitate to dive into it (as do I). Therefore, I won't advise you to take it to ANI again. The best I can do is keep an eye on their edits going forward. Please don't hesitate to report to me if they should edit some subject that involves abortion in ways I might not realize. Bishonen | talk11:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC).
Hi, I was wondering if you can look at the contributions of Nishidani at Talk:United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2334. One of my issues I have with him is that throughout his editing tenure here, he is extremely condescending to everyone. He pontificates, and throws out snide personal attacks. Is this a personal attack: "You've obviously never read a paragraph of anything he's written, not only because it would require more concentration that you seem capable of." And also calling someone "foggybrained," I know this may seem small, but it's basically with every interaction, and it's not just with me. Finally, I ask you to notify him that his user page violates WP:POLEMIC. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Sir Joseph. Please ask another admin, or maybe WP:AE if you prefer. Palestine-Israel is a highly contentious and contested area under discretionary sanctions — as arbcom said in 2008, it's a bitter and long-standing real-world conflict — and I'd rather not stick my ignorant nose into it. Bishonen | talk21:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC).
Thank you, it was more of the comments I posted right above that I was questioning. I'm not going to take him to AE just for that, but I did warn him to stop insulting others. Sir Joseph(talk)23:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
And he now responded to my warning with a post (in yiddish so people wouldn't notice), that "to write history, you need a head not an ass." Sir Joseph(talk)14:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not suggesting Nishidani is a saint or always correct, but you are totally misunderstaning him. Google confirms the obvious conclusion that the text written by Nishidani is a quote that would be well known to those who study in certain areas—that is why he wrote the text in the original. You may be right to think that nevertheless the text is inappropriate, but perhaps it would be better if those involved worked to reduce the level of misunderstanding. If such a simple post can be misinterpreted as "in yiddish so people wouldn't notice" what other meanings are being missed? Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
While I understand that, you need to realize it's coming after all the comments above, and this one that wasn't mentioned, "
"Okay- I'll dumb this conversation down even further to help you grasp the point." He has a habit of being condescending to all and it really needs to stop. Sir Joseph(talk)14:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Jehochman, thanks and I try, but he continues to attack, now he is also talking down to another editor for daring to disagree with him. He has also labeled my edits as abusive because I don't share his opinion. Talk:Sippenhaft#Connsistent_abuse_by_Sir_Joe, this has nothing to do with content/conflict of the IP area, this is a behavioral concern and I am upset that no admin is doing anything about it. That is all I'm asking for, I don't want to open an AE case when all that is needed is an admin warning him to stop his attacks. Sir Joseph(talk)18:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Bishonen, this really has to stop. Can you please do something about it? As the admin who blocked me for supposedly not listening or bludgeoning or whatever, Nishidani is doing the same thing. Bradv and I are constantly pointing out to Nishidani our concerns for why the Trump inclusion is not warranted, and I am pointing out to him that he can go to WP:DR or open an RFC, but he just keeps bludgeoning and reverting potentially BLP edits, which BTW violate ARBCOM sanctions, as a BLP and as a US Politics area. Sir Joseph(talk)17:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, I advised you above to contact another admin, which I believe you did (Drmies), or a noticeboard such as WP:AE. I'm no longer sure AE is the best place, since it's a civility issue; maybe WP:ANI. You should consider which to use, if any. Anyway, I don't understand why you would come back here after what I said above about not wanting to get involved with the Israel-Palestine area, where I feel ignorant. Frankly, you're bludgeoning me. The way you put it this time ("As the admin who blocked me for supposedly not listening or bludgeoning or whatever") suggests you come here because you can't get over my block of you in May 2016. Note that that block had absolutely nothing to do with Israel-Palestine, compare [195]. Please stop. Bishonen | talk21:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC).
Sorry you have to read that name again. I came across a user called BlackAmerican (will not ping for obvious reasons) whose editing style matches CAs. He mass produces articles, his grammar is similar, and uses bare links on a majority of those he starts. It is also telling that one of the userboxes is adjusted to say number 1, like CA did in the past. Should I take this to SPI?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't think you should, TheGracefulSlick, since you ask me. I'd say more, but the subject is a little delicate, so I'd prefer to say it privately. But you don't have wikimail enabled — I could have sworn I advised you to get that some time ago? Oh well. I advise you to hold your horses while I make some private enquiries. Bishonen | talk17:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC).
My apologies, I registered an e-mail but never confirmed it. I fixed that so you can e-mail me now. If you have time, please inform me of the situation. I think it is rather obvious who this user is but I will wait as asked for now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, if for whatever reason this account is not indef blocked for sockpuppetry (cannot think of one reason), I want to push for this account to be required to have articles reviewed before being placed in main space. As I survey the work, I can safely say CA on this account has learned nothing about notability, formatting, and overall quality. It is going to be another long clean-up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) and I've asked him to remove it. I took a quick look at the history and there is no indication that there is disruption. It appears to me to be a content dispute and you are trying to protect the page to gain an upper hand. The IP is using sources, using the talk page, using the edit summary. In addition, if protection is warranted, it should be regular semi-protection not ECP protection. Not every article with the word Jew in it is ARBPIA protection material. Sir Joseph(talk)00:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I reject this claim about me I have more sources to add to the article. I tried to work with the IP but he would not listen. I am willing to reach a compromise.Jonney2000 (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. I don't know if you are Japanese but I lived in Japan for years. I agree I have only had interest in creating and editing this article after I went to a retreat years ago which was really good and I wondered why I could only find negative things on the web about this teacher. I thought I could present a more balanced view of him and let people make their own minds. I also have interest in a very old sword art school but it is almost impossible to find any references to it and good luck getting access to old museum scrolls. At any rate, I have noticed certain individuals that have vehemently attacked the article over the years. Look at the history. As of writing this Richard Gooi has just undone all of the edits made the the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee editors within a day of their edits, cleverly crafting a negative picture. Wikipedia is to be impartial and balanced. Who said it was to be slanted negative. See for yourself. Thank you.Planktonium (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, User:Planktonium, welcome to my page. Your approach to writing an article is at odds with the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. It's Wikipedia's job to reflect what reliable sources say, not to push for righting great wrongs. You don't get to express your own opinion by being more positive than the existing sources. When you say "I could only find negative things on the web about this teacher", you have really said that it's unavoidable for the article to be pretty negative too — if, indeed, we should have an article about John de Ruiter at all. It might be better not to, IMO. Of course, now that we have it, it must by no means be an attack page, or unfairly slanted, but I don't think it is at present. Bishonen | talk18:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC).
Socks of TTAC
Hello Bishonen.
I see that there have been at least half a dozen sock IDs and IPs of TTAAC blocked recently for vandalism, personal attacks and TBAN and block evasion. The master ID's block is going to expire next month. It seems clear this user has gone off the edge and that its block should be extended to indefinite. Is this something that's going to require another round at AE or SPI or if not, I suggest that the Admins deal with this promptly so that the community doesn't have to? Thanks.
SPECIFICOtalk15:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I have made private inquiries about a couple of new accounts (not IPs). If they do turn out to be TTAAC, or even one of them does, I guess it'll be time for an indefinite block. So, no, I don't think there's any need for AE or SPI, if you'll have a little patience. But thanks for keeping your eyes open. Bishonen | talk15:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC).
Edits using wikisources are not disruptive, nor are they invalid.
Aside from your baseless claim that User:Sitush knows a lot about these things, it does not matter when using a wikisource. I notice you've been banned a few times before, and I think adding page protection to remove reliable sources to protect your friend is a serious infraction.
This conduct is inexcusable, and it is hard to dispute that your previous behaviour a few months ago is harder to defend now that the edits follow protocol (and both of you are still acting like this).
Thank you. I have replied at ANI. Your reports there and here make me wonder if I should revive my old special noticeboard for clueless complaints about Sitush, which was intended to de-bloat AN and ANI of these things. I've deleted that noticeboard because I felt it got old, but you can get the flavour, as well as assistance in framing future complaints, from the Clueless Complaint Generator, a help page that I've kept for the historical interest. Bishonen | talk17:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC).
Afew years ago, I saw a comment directed at Drmies along the lines of "love the username Drmies" and didn't understand it. I thought that one day I might achieve enlightenment, but alas I am still a novice. Please help. Roxy the dog.bark18:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hiya, Roxy, I hope you didn't bait the fine bear which currently adorns my edit notice! "Drmies" is just "Dr Mies" afaik, Not sure what's to love about it. Now "Bishonen", that's a name of infinite grace! But now you've started it, perhaps somebody will come along and enlighten us both, grasshopper. Bishonen | talk18:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC).
I used to suppose it rhymed with "armies". It had a certain musicality, and you could riff off it, e.g., Please don't harm me, Drmies. Sigh. Reality is so boringly prosaic. RivertorchFIREWATER20:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
WTF? Now I'm ordinary and boringly prosaic??? Bishonen, everything that goes through your talk page seems to get flattened into the kind of sad, grey, monotonous bleakness we know so well from realist Scandinavian fiction. If only The Lady Catherine de Burgh were around to bring grace and life to this odd conversation. Yes, Drmies does rhyme with "armies", as it rhymes with "ballet", "beauty", "butterfly", "butter", "bootyshake", "bodily", "beholden", and "Bishzilla", and that's just a few random b's--oh and I forgot Eric B. Drmies is "just" Dr. Mies--pshaw. That's almost like saying "grace is just not falling on your ass in the middle of a triple pirouette". Drmies (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
But you're not a pretty Japanese boy, are you, Dr Mies! Yes, it's always a privilege to see Lady Catherine on my page, but I'm not sure how often she logs in. Perhaps her nephew knows where to find her. Bishonen | talk23:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC).
What are the odds--I just sent Bishzilla an email containing revealing photographs of said nephew from some twenty-odd years ago, from that crazy dinner party. You might want to see if that hickey is visible in any of them. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I can assure you that there has never been any untoward behaviour by any of my family members at any dinner party hosted by myself. Such claims are phony news from sick people. I’m a very high profile person, I’m surrounded by bodyguards: it didn't happen it is fake news! I’m also very much of a germaphobe; In fact, many of closest friends are from Dusseldorf. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
And the user did the same thing on the Sony Pictures template:
[[197]]
I've told that user to look on those two links that I've provided two years ago and this user's behavior is getting out of control. The Bizapedia reference says that it's active and when I've looked under CorporationWiki's site, the site says that Adelaide Production is still active. I'm looking up more sites that'll say that it's still active. I'm having a discussion with that user under the Adelaide Productions talk page right now. Can you please do something about that user? King Shadeed 20:59, January 23, 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand where the information "Defunct June 23, 2014" (in the infobox) is supposed to come from; no source is given. I've asked a question on the talkpage. Bishonen | talk05:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC).
The user preferred not to reply to me, King Shadeed, but apparently got the point, as they edited the article to remove the insistence that Adelaide Productions is inactive. That's good. I've warned them about the namecalling. Bishonen | talk22:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC).
Thanks. I appreciate it. [User:King Shadeed|King Shadeed]] 14:09, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
Talk:John Peter Grant
If you or any of your stalkers are prepared to opine at Talk:John Peter Grant then it might be useful because I am coming to the boil there and likely to mis-speak. There was a spat there a couple of years ago and the same contributor has returned in the last few hours. The third party who got involved that time is, alas, no longer active. In fact, their involvement in that case appears to have been their last involvement with WP (hopefully, correlation ≠ causation ?!) - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Poor Mrs Bishonen seems to have gone absent without leave. At her age it's hardly surprising if she goes wandering off; so I am here in her place. Now remember dear Sitush: "least said soonest mended" is always good advice and I'm sure that's what poor little Mrs Bishonen would say to you if she remembers who you are. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) To my reading of the remark, it was not Sitush on whom those aspersions were cast, but the WMF. This is presumably in reference to unspecified claims the site may make to represent the truth (as the poster sees it), or perhaps the “anyone can edit“ slogan, on the premise that donations are being solicited under a promise to fulfil them. So I wouldn’t take it personally.—Odysseus147907:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem is, the guy is clueless and he's likely not going to change. He talks of WMF "subscriptions", he talks of personal knowledge of the Grant family, of deduction from primary sources etc. His writing lacks care, he misrepresents sources, he doesn't take on board stuff he is told (eg: WP:VNT was explained to him 2 years ago) and so on. I'm sorry but I don't cope well with people who have such a multitude of issues. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Fear not! My 3rd husband (he may have been the 4th) was a High Court Judge so I am well versed with such matters, and it that is almost a legal threat so we need to ban the perpetrator. Lots of Admins keep an eye on this page and they will now go and ban him. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been out on the tiles. Sorry, @Sitush:, can't face it today — resting — maybe tomorrow. Not only admins but lots of other helpful users keep an eye on this page — hello, little talkpage stalkers! Bishonen | talk21:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC).
<Abashedly>Actually, that is all Lady Cat (Sorry if that's too familiar for M'lady; I'm a big GoT books fan and couldn't resist). I just happened to see the edit summary of the comment I replied to and got a little silly... To be fair (to myself), I took a look at it, but the history of colonialism in the Caribbean is just not my thing, and the content dispute at the heart requires some familiarity with the subject. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.13:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
You forgot. little Tenor? And here I hoped thought you were incapacitated by the bomb in the box! Glad you enjoyed the basso of the great Bishzilla. But I wish it had struck me at the time that I might have used an explosion for the sound file (for the opening of the box). Bishonen | talk17:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC).
Well, that explains those mysterious, scary rumblings I kept hearing back in December. 'zilla was rehearsing, practicing Scottish rolled 'R's. RivertorchFIREWATER21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm being stalked? Oh, wait, it's not by a giant radioactive lizard, so that's OK.
Thanks for the note. I've looked at the edit history, and near as I can figure -- and I will admit I'm not up on the subtleties -- Nkansahrexford (talk·contribs) created this page, but did it in the sandbox of a different user, Iamjunie07 (talk·contribs), who moved it into mainspace [198]. This seems odd, especially since the only communication I can find between them is a welcome message left by Nkansahrexford on Iamjunie07's talk page. Am I missing something? --Calton | Talk08:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
And now see also [199]. But I think I, rather than you, am missing something; I didn't realize they had created it in another account's sandbox. That to me suggests they may be using multiple accounts. Bishonen | talk11:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC).
I'm really suprised "you know who" hasn't realised that he's never going to be unblocked and even though it's been over 1 year since he was blocked. He really needs to go spend his time doing more important things rather than just sit at a computer and leave messages which achieves nothing. Hope you're doing well Bish! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
This page isn't semi protected. All you did was downgrade the move protection level, I assume by accident. Sro23 (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Oops, I could have sworn... thank you, Sro23, fixed. Anyway, I hope you both enjoyed MONGO's very fine storm in the edit notice! I'm so glad I had the notion of having a switch (or whatever the term du jour is) for those photos. Bishonen | talk16:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC).
I've reverted and warned, and I'll issue an edit-warring block if they continue (if nobody from the noble Bish clan gets there first). I'd think a DS alert wouldn't go amiss if you choose to offer one, but I think I might hold off for now to avoid swamping their talk page after my warning and a COI one from Toddst1. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if the account is related to Bikak R A, which added kind of clueless stuff to Bikak tribe and also its talkpage in December? Of course I understand the "Bikak" part of the name isn't distinguishing. Anyway, never mind, that one hasn't edited this year.
What do you guys think of PRODding Bikak tribe, @Sitush and Boing! said Zebedee:? What good is it? Shorn of the clueless additions, as currently, it's 17 words long and innocent of references, also a honeypot for additions referenced to (or I presume indeed lifted from) unreliable British Raj sources. Bishonen | talk17:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC).
I have been unable to find any reliable sources. There are a couple of passing mentions in gazetteers which may or may not be reprints of Raj stuff but that is all. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure I understand your question, Wordsighn. Find what other users? If you know their name, you type User talk:X in the search field to go to X's talkpage, but I think you knew that. Please explain what users you're looking for — there are so many. (To find very new users, you can look here.) Bishonen | talk15:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC).
Hello. It seems that I have been topic banned from articles related to India. I would like to point that I mostly make minor edits and also create articles once in a while. I'm definitely not here to push any agenda and seeing this ban honestly makes me quite sad. Yes, arguments do occur and recently I haven't been taking the best methods to resolve them. You can check my talk archives and see some ones that have been successfully solved. Question: Does this topic ban affect articles in other languages as well, or is it just on the English Wikipedia? Thanks. Filpro (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
This only concerns the English Wikipedia; our discretionary sanctions and admin decisions here don't affect any other Wikipedia, or any other Wikimedia Foundation site. I don't agree that you mostly make minor edits; it looks to me like you mostly make reverts, and remove text. You have been edit warring very recently on several articles. That's emphatically not the best method for resolving arguments. As for your talkpage archives, if you mean your own user talkpage, it looks to me like you rarely reply there other than by removing the posts you receive. Here's your response to an IP user who attempted to discuss sourcing with you, with regard to the articles Languages with official status in India, Languages of India, and Names of India in its official languages, and to warn you about edit warring. You had been reverting a lot at those articles without, as far as I can see, ever responding to attempts to discuss on article talkpages. Look at this talkpage history, for example: the IP is all over it, and you're nowhere. That's just one example; indeed, I hardly ever see you on article talkpages. But you know you can appeal my ban at a noticeboard, right? See this information: you can appeal either on WP:AN, WP:AE, or WP:ARCA. The difference is that at AN, the community will evaluate your appeal; at AE, uninvolved admins will; and at ARCA, the arbitration committee will. AE is the most common, and probably the best, for these appeals. Bishonen | talk22:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC).
I can't speak to user:Filpro's violation of Wikietiquette etc, but it is clear to me that the IP is attempting to wreak mischief by making nonsensical claims. Hindi written in the Devanagari script is the official language of India, has always been, with English as a subsidiary, or associate, official language. So, the locked down page Languages with official status in India carries incorrect information, when it begins with the IP's version, "The Constitution of India designates the official languages of the Government of India as English, as well as Hindi written in the Devanagari script." Filpro's version is the more correct version, and has been the stable lead sentence in the article. This is an issue that was settled long ago on Talk:India. See Talk:India/Archive_12#Secondary_sources:, and see continuing discussion in archives 13 and 14. Filpro, might well have made tendentious edits on other pages, but here he is correct about the underlying content dispute. Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi F&f. Topic bans are not issued for being right or wrong on content but rather for a pattern of disruptive editing which includes edit warring, not participating in discussions, and, as in Filepro's actively avoiding discussion. In the case of the language article, you're probably right - since it's you, almost certainly right :) - and, if the current version is the wrong one then you should take it up with the protecting admin (Ferret) and ask them to revert the article back to the long term stable version (this one, I think). I'd do it but have edited that page in the past and am, consequently, involved. --regentspark (comment) 02:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
While I don't disagree wifh F&f on the lede in this case (I say that as one who has repeatedly used "subsidiary" for English on this and other articles), but, as I said earlier in response to Ugog Nizdast, neither are entirely right: with this edit he changed Union government to Republic, that isn't correct as the same constitution explicitly provides for English in the context of the courts and legal system as well as for individual states to adopt their own (subject to Presidential consent). That said, I don't believe the tban was based on this one instance, rather a pattern of disruption, as seen with many edits including this edit which hijacked the article to something against talk page consensus, and this which essentially furthers the same agenda as well as this which uses that new change in another article. Then, there's this which again goes against the consensus from a discussion he started, clearly refusing to accept any opinion to the contrary. There's also this behavior which is far too typical of their behavior so far, treating any disagreemnts, especially from IP editors like shit. Never participates in any discussions with anyone, just continues to edit war. A broken clock is also right twice a day, and this happens to be the case with the lede here. —SpacemanSpiff02:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not privy to user:Filpro's behavior; my point is that regardless of the words "Union" or "Republic," or the language of the High Courts, etc, the expression "Official language of India" has been interpreted by most sources, countries, and international organizations to be Hindi. English does not have equal status as an official language of India. It never has since the early 1950s, in the predominance of sources, that is. In other words, even [Filpro's lead sentence, Filpro's lead sentence, which says, "The Constitution of India designates the official language of the Government of India as Hindi written in the Devanagari script, as well as English," is not entirely correct, as seems to suggest equal status. That is why I used the expression, "more correct" in my post above. The stable version, as I remember it, was something along the lines of: "The official language of India is Hindi, written in the Devanagari script; English is an associate, or subsidiary official language. ..." But, anyway, sorry Bishonen, this is not really the place for these musings. My point, in some sense, was, that this particular instance, of an encounter with an IP, who, in my view, was deliberately flogging a dead horse of Indian linguistic sub-nationalism, should not be the last straw that breaks a potentially tendentious editor's back. Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Fowler&fowler and the rest of you. No, it wasn't the last straw, even if it was the most recent problem. Just cast your eye at the user's contributions — just the list — see how there's never any talkpage discussion. And compare this discussion, which is very enlightening, with many more diffs. Perhaps I should have given the user some more examples. Bishonen | talk12:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC).
@Fowler&fowler, SpacemanSpiff, and RegentsPark: In that case, I'll go ahead and make an edit request there to restore it to that version per above. The remaining changes can be made anytime later, at minimum, I'll just make it echo exactly how it's put in India since that's the most agreed-on. Will cite this discussion and Talk:India there. If everyone's probably having a discussion in some centralised article page regarding this matter in general, (cause I just watch that page that too because I rechecked some figures recently), link it there then as well. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
I saw you deleted this as an expired PROD. Just curious why it was showing up that way. I'm prettt confident I just placed the tag today with Twinkle. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm curious too. Not sure if there was a technical glitch or a brainfart on my part, but the second is more likely, no doubt. I've restored the article. Thanks for keeping your eyes open, TonyBallioni! Bishonen | talk01:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC).
TheGracefulSlick and I are involved in an edit war on the talk page of the Garage rock article. He asked Ilovetopaint to propose a possible re-review of the article's current GA status. This is disruptive, because I was about to take the article to FAC. I've been trying to make changes that would satisfy everyone, so such a regressive step should be unnecessary. I think that his intention is to harm and disrupt. What can I do? Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi thank you very much for pointing me to the policy. please note that I didn't ignore you. We wont repeat it anymore. But do we do with the account that has been created? should the usernames be abandoned? Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure, Olaniyan Olushola. I certainly don't want to block those accounts: the potential new users should not be bitten! If you can think of a simple way to give them new improved names and ask them to abandon the old ones, that might be best. But, you know, it might be better to leave it as it is — I don't think it's worth creating difficulties and bureacracy for them. They're brand new users (I assume), so they probably have enough trouble navigating our labyrinths without having to jump through extra hoops. I'll leave it to you to decide what's best to do. How's the editathon going? Thank you for arranging it. Bishonen | talk23:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC).
Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus. In this article sockmasters are using IPs for block evasion. As I expected RFPP request was declined. Maximum edits of the last 50 edits were made by socks.
Hi, Marvellous Spider-Man. Only one IP has edited the article (twice) in the past three weeks, so it's unsurprising the RFPP was declined. If you're posting here to ask me to semiprotect anyway, I'm sorry, I won't. If you think 2405:205:88:24af:94b:392a:7437:3f51 was used by one of the sockmasters you name, do you have an opinion of which one? It might be worth posting that IP to the relevant SPI. I know Checkusers won't connect IPs to accounts, but if the behavioral evidence is compelling, admins can block per WP:DUCK. @Kautilya3: I see you have been editing the article, do you have any opinion? Bishonen | talk11:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC).
Yes, the page is on my watch list. I don't see a lot of traffic on it. The topic is contentious. So occasional edit=warring is unavoidable. I will take a look. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you dare to prove my article is purely promotional
You have deleted my article named 'Fathers of Missionaries of Mary Immaculate' . How are you saying that this article is not neutral? Can you give me valid reasons. Without any proper evidence you have deleted my article. Wikipedia is not a good place for emerging article writers. Because of you people, I have stopped to write articles. Having some worthless intentional causes you have done this atrocity. You will repent for it soon. Edson Frainlar (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Edson Frainlar: Yes, I dare. You have lifted most of the text from MMI's own site. Naturally, MMI are promotional and not neutral in talking about themselves. That's not a problem; but putting it into Wikipedia, which is supposed to consist of neutral articles, is a big problem. It's both a copyright violation (unless indeed you own the copyright to the MMI site,in which case you have a huge conflict of interest and shouldn't be creating articles about them at all) and results in the article reading like an advertisement. Compare:
From http://www.mmi-eap.com/our%20mission.html: "The world is our mission. Any culture and any country will be our missionary field. Our missionary thrust will be a living sign to encourage others to follow Jesus more intensely. Any service that helps human and spiritual development of persons will be a mission to us. Our Mission is not to provide fish but teach them how to fish. Our Mission as educators takes place in the education of youth in schools, colleges and Universities. As educators of faith, our mission take place in parishes,Rural areas."
From your article: "The world is their mission. Any culture and any country will be their missionary field. Their missionary thrust will be a living sign to encourage others to follow Jesus more intensely. Any service that helps human and spiritual development of persons will be a mission to them. Their Mission is not to provide fish but teach them how to fish. Their Mission as educators takes place in the education of youth in schools, colleges and Universities. As educators of faith, our mission take place in parishes,Rural areas."
You changed "our" to "their" but otherwise kept the text exactly the same. This is just one example, the article was full of them. So was the other article I deleted, Sisters of Daughters of Mary Immaculate and Collaborators. Please follow Samtar's advice above, and read our policy. Also, please stop harassing all the people who have been involved with you in any way, usually by trying to help and advise you, as you did here, here, here, and here (a whole dialogue, very aggressive on your side). Wikipedia is a place where people are supposed to be able to discuss articles without being attacked. Bishonen | talk16:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC).
please stop reverting my article what i write are facts and i have given appropriate source for it. sitesh is saying pedia press is not reliable many wikipedia pages use pedia press as a source check other wikipages for example please understand (akshaypillai 15:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC))
Please discuss this with Sitush, who is knowledgeable about sources in this field. I will block you if you continue to edit war. BTW, I see you have never edited your own talkpage — perhaps you haven't found it? It's here. Please read the posts on it right now. Bishonen | talk15:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC).
Possible IP range block
Hello Bishonen. I was hoping that you could impose a range block, as an IP seems to be continuing editing from a new IP (in the same range), after being blocked on their preview ones. They have been blocked respectively for 2 weeks ([200], block still ongoing), 31 hours ([201]), and had warnings ([202] and [[203]). I believe they are the same person as they seem to be in the same IP range, and have the same pattern of adding unsourced information about WWE events, in particular they seem to be adding the same fake reference to University of Phoenix Stadium about Wrestlemania 35 ([204], [205]. [206], [207]). I ask you in particular, as you have imposed a range block on a similar IP in the past, who may be the same person: ([208]), who also added a similar fake reference to that article: ([209]). Thank you for your assistance. Silverfish (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Silverfish. The range I blocked here on 15 January, 2600:8800:4487:aa00::/64, had a lot of edits from different IPs right up to 15 January; but has had none since, obviously, as the range is still blocked.
The IPs you have linked me to are in the range 2600:8800:4481:5b00::/64. There is a kind of similarity, indeed, as the first two groups of digits are the same, but I'm kind of hoping it's not the same person despite the similarity in editing, because I can't block the huge range that both the /64 ranges belong to. (How huge? @Johnuniq and RexxS:. I'll block your recently active 2600:8800:4481:5b00::/64 for a couple of weeks and can only hope that will help. Thanks for alerting me. Bishonen | talk19:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC).
The allocations of IPV6 tend to be a complete nnnn:nnnn:nnnn:nnnn/64 range for an individual entity (person, firm, etc.), and it's quite possible for someone to be editing from 2600:8800:4487:aa00::/64 for some time and later on from 2600:8800:4481:5b00::/64 - it could even be home and work, for example, although both are allocated to Cox Communications Inc., US. You don't want to be blocking everything from 2600:8800:4481:: to 2600:8800:4487:: - that's potentially half a million people. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, John. Well, I just blocked 2600:8800:4481:5b00::/64 for a couple of weeks. I'd blocked 2600:8800:4487:aa00::/64 previously, for a month, nearly a month ago (that's probably the reason Silverfish came to me). That block will expire on Feb 15. I guess it is highly likely it's all one person, as the editing is similar. So I suppose 2600:8800:4487:aa00::/64 may well spring into action on Wednesday? That's worrying, but I can hardly re-block pre-emptively... or... nah. Silverfish, please let me know if you should see IPs from 2600:8800:4487:aa00::/64 making unsourced edits again. You can recognize them from the way they begin with "2600:8800:4487:aa00". Bishonen | talk02:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
Thanks for the block. I'll keep an eye out for similar edits on either range. I've activated the gadget to check contributions for ranges. To be clear, I wasn't suggesting a range block to cover both /64 ranges, I just mentioned the previous block for context to explain why I asked you, and in case it was relevant in deciding the block length. Silverfish (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Mayorkun
Hello Bishonen, You deleted the Article Mayorkun due to an AFD discussion lead by only one censuses which was a Sockpuppet and a block user. When u wanted to create the article Mayorkun their was a coloured box which warnd me, If am here to create a different content about Mayorkun I should continue but if am here to create the same content I should contact an administrator. Actually I believe my content was different from previous deleted version. I believe the deletion page was by mistake because the vote came from a Sockpuppet. I was trying to explain this but it seems there's no Understanding, Please look at the AFD discussion and found out what am saying. Mayorkun passes its citeria mainly WP:GANG and WP:MUSICBIO. If an AFD was raised on this new version I will be prefer that because it bring good censuses this time around wiich I believe. Please I would like you to look at the AFD discussion which was a Sockpuppet. Looking forward to your advice regarding Mayorkun article, thanks.--Donald422 (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I seem to be merely giving you a runaround, Donald422, but the fact is I speedy deleted Mayorkun simply because it was a recreation of an article that had previously been deleted per a deletion discussion in November 2016 (this deletion discussion). That is one of our speedy deletion critera. Therefore, I'm afraid you'll have to take your concern to MBisanz, who originally deleted the article, and who closed the deletion discussion. He's the admin who took stock of the Keep/Delete arguments. Sorry about that, and I hope the can stops with him. Bishonen | talk00:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
Oh I see, I think that will be a nice idea, reporting to the admin who deleted the article as delete, thanks for your explanation, now I understand.--Donald422 (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
You've really had a string of bad luck, Donald422! I'm sorry. But I think MBisanz is reasonably active. He hasn't edited since you posted on his page, but as you can see from his contributions, he's generally around. Please give it another 24 hours. If he hasn't replied by then, I'll take care of it. Bishonen | talk21:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC).
ARBAP2
Hello Bishonen. Whatever your opinion, I think it would be helpful to all if you could comment at the AE case as to whether the reverts by Guccisamsclub (cited in my comment there) constitute violations of DS. This has come up repeatedly. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk00:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, SPECIFICO . I'm not sure. I was looking at it, but Sandstein has now closed the AE request. I suppose you might still be interested, especially considering Sandstein's closing comment — right? For instance, if you want to submit a request of your own. I can look some more if you like. I do understand these page remedies need some Kremlinology to interpret. Bishonen | talk15:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
Basically, I try to back off completely, except for citing policy, when these things get contentious. I'm afraid it would only encourage more retaliation against me. But regarding "longstanding", I do think there is a disconnect between highly motivated editors who are on the computer all day and interpret "challenged by revert" to mean "immediately reverted" vs. others who do not track every edit real time and who read articles on many topics somewhat less frequently, over a longer cycle. Oh well... SPECIFICOtalk15:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, @SPECIFICO: it is hard for all of us to follow the stream of edits on pages like that, which is why I wrote in my comment at A/E that it would be inappropriate to sanction you. But I disagree that it is appropriate to conceive of those who disagree with you as a separate class of "highly motivated editors who are on the computer all day." If there was more genuine AGF going on, the contention would be more palatable, and that is certainly possible. -Darouet (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
As you may not have seen, Darouet, I've already addressed that concern on the article talk page immediately after another editor took it personally. My remark referred to no individual. I was commenting, as a social scientist IRL who tends to notice such things, about the demographics of the WP editing community. The disparity in connectedness and web-centricity in editors lives gives rise to a particular effect on articles such as American Politics. The larger problem on that particular article is that some editors deny basic WP principles such as BLP, WEIGHT, RS, V, NPA. I do not make personal comments. I do point out that this or that edit violates one of these principles. Often an editor will reply with a personal attack, a derisive reference to a policy link as "alphabet soup" or some other unproductive remark. Just sayin'... SPECIFICOtalk16:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that demographics are a major problem for Wikipedia. This includes the problem that you note about web-centric people, and the problem of ensuring that Wikipedia is a global (not primarily an American) encyclopedia. I also agree with you that policy links bombarded at fellow editors are obnoxious. -Darouet (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure I follow you on the wikilinks. I was saying that the policy links must be followed and that editors should not misinterpret such citations as disruptive or personal remarks. SPECIFICOtalk23:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see now what you're saying. I used to hate the spamming of links in a dispute - sometimes it can become wikilawyering - but I've come to see it as necessary sometimes too. It's difficult because if someone has been editing long enough to know all these policies, citing one won't make much of a difference. I like citing them much more at the Teahouse because there at least, people genuinely have no idea what you're talking about and learn something whenever you link a policy. -Darouet (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
New bird image
Rüppell's griffon vulture, known to fly higher than typical Lufthansa / United / British / SAS flights!!Secretary birds have beaks bigger than than their perfunctory name might suggest.
...but admin-vultures only eat the bits left after other admin-birds have made the kill. I thought you enjoyed the kill? (joke - please take in the light-hearted way it is intended). DrChrissy(talk)17:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Nah, the kill is most often suicide-by-wiki. Admin vultures just clean up the carcass. I'm really sorry the owl has gone; no doubt 'Shonen thought it reminded her of me ("full of itself"). --RexxS (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh, I do enjoy it. I was actually inspired by this comment (not as light-hearted). But I'm not sure I'll leave it up very long. Hmm... maybe some dainty little critter next? Or a big squawky bird? You're good with birds, aren't you, @DrChrissy:? You got a suggestion? Bishonen | talk17:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
@Bish: this one may be meditating on something different. Vultures... typically harsh looking, but some are impressive. Such as the Rüppell's griffon vulture. Came across a few, some 10 years ago at Lake Nakuru National Park, northwest of Nairobi during one of the lovely stays in East Africa. Don't know why a griffon flies above 35,000 feet? Can it see targets from up there? Who knows!! A nice @MONGO pic today. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Bish - be aware that although the bish-secretary bird appears elegant, thoughtful and gentle, it kills wp-prey by stamping on them[210]. You might end up with the name "Bish-Bash-Bosh" (UK humour which might not translate!) DrChrissy(talk)18:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
There are several birds I can think of, but they all seem to have negative aspects you might not like to be associated with. You could try the Marabou stork which spreads its wings over its kill so that other editor-birds cannot see what they are doing - but the have the distasteful habit of excreting down their legs to keep cool. You could try the Jakana which learns to tread extremely carefully over floating editor-lilly pads - but they are often eaten alive by editor-crocodiles. My third suggestion is the Hornbill. Hornbills are known for their intelligence, long memory and fidelity - but they have the lovely habit of blocking their editor-mate into a nest hole in a tree and feeding them through a small gap.
Hehehe, thanks for all the cool birds, little stalkers. Maybe I'll make a carousel of them, like the MONGO carousel in my edit notice. Or change the pic according to mood. Love the Jesus bird! Bishonen | talk20:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
Possible reptile
Closeup of the head and fore-quarters of the Bish-dragon
Bishonen, perhaps you are prepared to consider (in the same light-hearted manner) the admin-Komodo dragon. First of all, the "Bish-dragon" would be a wonderful name, but their best attributes are the way they deal with pesky editors prey. They have venom glands in their jaws, but the venom is very slow acting. So, Bish-dragon becomes an ambush predator by hiding in bushes, waiting until an unsuspecting editor deer walks past. Bish-dragon then sprints at their target with huge speed and nips the editor deer on the heel, thereby injecting venomous saliva into the editor deer. As I said, the venom is slow acting so the editor deer initially runs away, but Bish-dragon follows the scent trail, often drooling at the thought of the inevitable block meal. Bish-dragon slowly, but relentlessly, continues to follow the editor deer until it becomes incapacitated from the venom or infection from the bite wound. This might take several days, but Bish-dragon is unforgiving. When the correct moment comes, the victorious Bish-dragon pounces on the defenceless, now completely disoriented prey, making a block kill inevitable. ;-) DrChrissy(talk)21:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
This aint no little dragon and you would need mighty pockets to keep one in - an average adult male weighs 79 to 91 kg (174 to 201 lb) and measures 2.59 m (8.5 ft). Oh, and another cute feature is they can breed by parthenogenesis, which means Bishzilla would not need a daddy Bishzilla for all those baby Bishzillas! DrChrissy(talk)21:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@DrChrissy:, she'd need mighty pockets, is it? I can only assume you have never visited Bishzilla's pocket, where the entire island of Komodo would fit quite comfortably. Here's the link again. Feel free to drop in! Baby Bishzillas...? [Bishonen, unaccountably, has a fit of the shivers.]]. Bishonen | talk22:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
Oh... I see I forgot to actually place the block, Hemant banswal. Now I have, and I'm afraid the answer is no, you can't. Please get back to your talkpage, User talk:Hemant banswal, the only Wikipedia page you can now edit, and talk to for example User:McGeddon, who has taken so much trouble to reach out to you about your pictures. Depending on how that goes, I'll consider unblocking. Bishonen | talk21:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
You're both very sweet. Thank you. Hint to others: I like flowers, and incidentally chocolate I suppose, but I really like liqourice. HINT HINT. Bishonen | talk11:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC).
Article on Surprise Based Learning
Hint for 'Shonen
Hi Bishonen, I was posting an article about a new artificial intelligence learning approach called Surprise-Based Learning (SBL) when it was rudely deleted as advertising. I thought that Wikipedia was a free encyclopedia, so should it not be the first place anyone should read about a novel approach that rivals Deep Learning? SBL was a technique conceived by a Nobel Laureate and developed at the University of Southern California with many publications, and it must be linked under cognitive robotics, so would you be kind enough to undelete the page and allow me to finish it by adding the appropriate section titles, process figures, links and other things which adhere to Wikipedia standards. Thanks in advance.
(talk page stalker)Hi, SurpriseBasedLearning, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm MjolnirPants and I'm one of the editors who watches Bishonen's talk page. Your username leads me to believe that you are a single-purpose account, and while there are no rules against that, you should be aware that other SPA's have caused problems for us in the past. With a name like yours, it also raises the possibility of a conflict of interest. This is another 'red flag' for experienced editors who do things like patrolling new pages. Without being able to read the page you mentioned, I can't tell you my opinion on whether it was overly promotional or not, but even if it wasn't, the combination of your username and an article about a brand new field in computer sciences is bound to raise a few eyebrows.
So let me give you a few tips, if you want to be able to contribute an article. I'll start by answering your question:
"I thought that Wikipedia was a free encyclopedia, so should it not be the first place anyone should read about a novel approach that rivals Deep Learning?"
In a word; no. Wikipedia does not publish novel research or ground-breaking discoveries. In order to provide information which is accurate and verifiable, we generally wait until new lines of research are well established before writing about them. This allows us to find reliable, secondary sources on which to base our articles. This way, we can write about more than the technical aspects of such fields, including how they impact the wider world.
My next tip (okay, my first real tip) is that you should always sign talkpage edits with four tildes (~~~~) so we know who's talking.
Next, I would advise you to read through some of our core policies and guidelines. You can find these at The 5 Pillars of Wikipedia and Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. These will really help you to get a handle on how things are done around here, and what we look for in a new article.
Finally, I would invite you to check out our Talk page guidelines for some more in-depth information on how formatting and etiquette on talk pages is handled. You'd be surprised at how much easier it is to get on here when you know exactly how people expect you to communicate.
As a parting note, I'd like to add that the title of this subject has left me haunted by the mental image of Samuel L Jackson leaping out of my closet to smack me in the face with a math textbook and scream "Calculus, motherfucker! Can you do it now??" so thanks for that. I hope I've been able to help and I wish you happy editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.05:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
What MjolnirPants said. Thank you very much for assisting the new user, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants. It's very common that people don't know exactly what Wikipedia is for, and only natural that they may think it's for sharing new discoveries with the world, though that's not so. User:SurpriseBasedLearning, please see also Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. I didn't actually delete an article, but your userpage, and I never mentioned advertising — I don't even think your page was advertising. I gave the reason "Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host", as you can see here, and I believe it was that. Please see WP:USER for the purpose of userpages; in a word, you shouldn't try to write articles on them. Bishonen | talk11:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) You don't need to do anything, Jim1138. That's probably a member of staff informing anyone who is contemplating a block that it's a school, and that a soft block would be preferable to avoid disrupting registered editors who might edit via the school's IP. The IP is a registered proxy server in Conwy belonging to "Welsh Assembly Government". Admins should normally hard-block open proxies, but may confuse the two. The school is almost certainly not asking for a block. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, you think that's what they meant, RexxS? I read it differently, and was about to recommend ANI so more admins could enjoy and opine on such an unusual block request. But you're probably right. What you could do, Jim1138, is make the request more visible — you know, bold it, put it at the top, state that it's a request coming from this IP. Because in the usual course of things, with another warning or two, their little note will soon be pretty much invisible. Bishonen | talk11:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC).
Well, you could be right that they want to be blocked so that the staff don't have to worry about their kids causing vandalism. But looking at the contributions, it's 50-50 between useful edits and writing "poo" into articles, so we ought not to be pre-emptively blocking, IMHO. I've dropped a little template on the IP's talk page that should help to educate the users and warn any admins who may block in future. --RexxS (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you available to do some revdels over on Donald Trump talk? I'd give you diffs but that just generates more revdels. Very recent, in the health section on talk. Thanks. Have already been revdel'd from the main article. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, I've deleted them. Some very odd editing from Fred Bauder. Worrying when we can't trust former Arbs to follow basic policy... WJBscribe(talk)21:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The fact that person is in the White House is going to make more than a few people forget the rules & common sense concerning those articles. Wise Wikipedians would do well staying as far away from those articles as possible; there is a curse on that man which will otherwise harm both their sanity & reputations, regardless of their opinion about him. -- llywrch (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Vembu Technologies
Someone has unilaterally moved Vembu Technologies to Vembu-Technologies. The move is contrary to the spelling used in all four sources and also the official website of the company. I don't have the permissions to move it back. Can you or one of the admins watching here please do so. Ta! - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Although I know what salting is, I've never knowingly seen a salted title. That applied here, too! - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Bishus komodoensis
(edit conflict) and then again (edit conflict). The history of Vembu-Technologies shows the user moved it to Wikipedia:Vembu Technologies (sic) to 'correct the name' — quite right in a sense, but the "Wikipedia" part was of course wrong, and the same person immediately moved it back, leaving a redirect which was later deleted as "implausible". The properly named page, Vembu Technologies wasn't involved in those moves. It has been repeatedly recreated and speedied as unambiguous advertising. There is also an AfD from 2013, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vembu Technologies, and it was protected against recreation in 2014. Of course that's the reason the alternative spelling Vembu-Technologies article was created — not, I daresay, because anybody thought it ought to be spelled like that. Complicated? Yes, and sneaky. I've deleted and protected the sneak version as well. Nobody is going to move it anywhere, RexxS. Presumably we can now look forward to, say, Vembu technologies. I'd quite like to block the person, who is telling us here that butter wouldn't melt in his mouth ("We both will take this feedback very seriously" — apparently there are two brothers, both named Kevin), but, meh, it was a year ago, and also, we'd just get more socks. Good catch, Sitush. Bishonen | talk14:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC).
(edit conflict × 3) @Sitush: I was just about to propose speedy deletion for the article and the misplaced redirect as G4 and G6, but 'Shonen already deleted them (as G11 and G8). No messing about today! --RexxS (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bish and other talk page watchers: Several experienced editors such as Robert McClenon, llywrch and others have noted the problems such as edit warring, personal attacks and other high-spirited behavior in articles related to the Horn of Africa. This has stonewalled editors like Ilywrch, me and others in working on these articles. There are numerous ethno-religious groups in HOA, with a long history of wars / discrimination / slave raids / persecution / etc, as well as difficulty in accessing scholarly information behind paywall, and all this may be a cause of the poor quality articles and edit warring there (see Ilywrch's note on this). Bringing HOA under AC/DS may help. Do we have a procedure page on how to file a request to add Horn of Africa space articles under WP:AC/DS? Per this, do I need to file a request for a Arb Com motion? I am not sure, nor am I clear on where such a request needs to be filed. Help!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Ms Sarah Welch - Only the ArbCom can impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions. You would need to request that the ArbCom either adjudicate a full case involving the Horn of Africa, which we want to avoid, or impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions by motion. Go to ArbCom Case Requests. At least, that is what to do if you really want ArbCom sanctions, and I can't promise that ArbCom will do that. The alternative would be to request community general sanctions at WP:AN. For some reason, community general sanctions have never worked quite as well as ArbCom sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks complicated. FYI, Cordless Larry, Buckshot06 and Doug Weller since you too have witnessed some of the recent high-spirited behavior in this articles space. I am leaning towards filing a motion, with the understanding that ArbCom may or may not approve it, as noted by Robert McClenon. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It looks like most of the vandalism is IP or new users. Why not just protect the page using regular protection procedures? Have you requested any page protection at all for the page? Sir Joseph(talk)20:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I may have been a little too worried about those articles. Unless things have changed since I edited in that part of Wikipedia 5 or so years ago, there aren't that many people editing those article. So discretionary sanctions may be overkill & edit bans of individuals may be a better fit. However, the potential for systemic disruption exists: it's not a part of the world where people are willing to agree to disagree, such as (for example) with Israel-Palestinian articles, & there are many passionate conflicts lurking just beyond the purview of the international news media. Lasstly, I guess my note at WP:AN/I wasn't clear: I stopped editing there not because of other editors, but because it was too freaking hard to find specific information about Ethiopia. For example, the reason most of the Ministers of Ethiopia lack biographical articles is that there is no information about them online; I guess politicians in Ethiopia are different from those in the rest of the world & are very modest about their achievements. -- llywrch (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Horn of Africa" isn't exactly a space, Ms Sarah Welch. Do you mean these articles? That's a lot, with all the subcategories and subsubcategories. If you (or somebody) would provide me with a conservative list of articles being disrupted by non-autoconfirmed users (that's IP's and fly-by accounts), I could probably semi them. By conservative, I mean a short list. Bishonen | talk20:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC).
Adding after reading llywrch's post (how it could give me two edit conflicts, I don't know, but I'm confidently expecting a third): And I can certainly sanction persistently disruptive autoconfirmed users if I'm told about them. Just take a look at my new adminbird symbol at the top of this page. Bishonen | talk20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC).
@Bish: Indeed, that is the category. More specifically, the pages on ethnic groups, languages and history articles of Ethiopia, Somalia and nearby regions. If someone has time and patience, just read the walls of post on Talk:Oromo people, Talk:Somalis, Talk:Amhara people, etc, and then their article edit histories. Tiresome it is. The "newbies" aren't new editors, because they misquote wiki policy acronyms and wikilawyer too often to be new. Llywrch is right about "finding information is hard" on bios related to Horn of Africa etc, but my interest is not bios, my interest is the main articles such as Oromo/ Somalis/ Amhara/ Ifat/ Adal/ etc. Better sources and many more RS are available for these ethnic groups, sultanates, their history. Cordless Larry is right. Many pages related to HOA are affected. Bish: thanks for the note on IPs and fly-by accounts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocked for 31 hours, I see. (It's dynamic, so not much point in blocking for longer.) Why do I feel it's not the last we see of Motbag? Bishonen | talk12:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC).
I think most of the Indian city projects are moribund. They tend to be created in the heat of initial enthusiasm and (if appeals for support at WT:INB are anything to go by) get nowhere. But I tend to stay well clear of MfD for the same reason I tend to stay clear of CfD. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm generally of the opinion that categories of this sort, and to an extend navboxes too, are a kind of cruft and should be disposed of when possible. Vanamonde (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Might be easier to wait seven days and then delete them under WP:CSD#C1. Unless someone is willing to do the bold thing and delete them now.--regentspark (comment) 14:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Marvellous Spider-Man et al: This sort of chest-thumping unfortunately happens far too often on WP:IN. THis project in particular was rejected at WT:INB and if I remember correctly Redrose64 once declined to add it to {{WikiProject India}} citing that discussion but it seems to have found its way back into it creating this sort of nuisance. I remember a discussion earlier where Dharmadhyaksha, Ugog Nizdast and I had proposed getting rid of all these as they just clutter up the talk pages with inane categories and useless tags, not one of them actually helping the article but mainly making editors feel good about themselves. None of these will get deleted at MfD, just see the amount of trouble I had to go through to get some of the Tamil civilizations nonsense (all duplicative) deleted that just ended in everything being kept as "they are important". I can't find the links right now, but maybe someone else can look through the history at WT:INB. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff03:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
And bingo: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_61#Consolidation_of_task_forces_and_sub_projects. Main issue is we have all these dead pages and new users posting there only to get no response; further adding to their confusion. We barely manage to man WP:INDIA and WT:INB. Ideally, I would picture all of them redirecting there for ease in communication. Just these two are more than enough but do we have incentive or time to tackle it? I just roll my eyes when I see someone add some random subproject template to an article's talk nowadays. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Always hungry! I had a wise and sleepy owl there before, but was inspired to make a change by this charming comment. I was too dignified to reply directly to that person, y'know, but a picture says more than a thousand words. Bishonen | talk12:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC).
Barthateslisa (again)
It seems to me that as established editor, with a current topic ban under ARBIPA, who then goes around vandalizing articles outside their topic ban, is simply asking for a block, or alternatively a complete ARBIPA topic ban. BTW I don't understand the term they inserted, nor the language it is in, but it is different from the name of the article's subject, and a few minutes with google translate convinces me that it is pejorative. Vanamonde (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
And a BLP, too. I see Widr has blocked for 72 hours. Yes, I'll certainly consider an extended (and longer!) topic ban if there's more where that came from. Bishonen | talk12:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC).
Hi, I'd like your opinion on a group of articles. First, take a quick look at the following articles. What's your first, quick impression? I'd like your unbiased impression before I explain why, below.
The intention of this exercise is to help students (1) develop a Wikipedia article and (2) learn about Wikipedia community, culture, and norms. We've run this exercise through six semesters, contributed many articles, and, yes, I am a long time Wikipedian and have even written a book about Wikipedia. This semester, some students were less prepared than in the past and encyclopedic tone is one of the things that are tricky for them. Additionally, I did not appreciate how much more the "unambiguous promotion/ad" had become deletionistic.
These are not conflict of interest edits but beginnings that I hope their peers and Wikipedians will collaborate on together during the rest of this semester. I think moving articles back into their user space or into the Draft space is a useful and productive action. I started doing this myself as a type of feedback on the day some of the students moved their articles. -Reagle (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Reagle. I was just starting to reply to Calton, after reading his post above and also the exchange on your own talkpage. Since you yourself are an experienced wikipedian, I hope I can talk straight to you without being accused of biting newcomers or being a jerk. I was going to tell Calton that I agree the supervisor (=you) needs to be more aware of our policies against promotion and advertising, and also altogether supervise more, rather than assume some other people will fix the problems. For instance, rather than responding to Calton, as you did on your page, by ungraciously conceding that someone (who?) might move a poor and practically unreferenced article to draft space, ("It could easily be moved to Draft namespace and provided with feedback. That'd be the non-jerky way to treat newcomers") ,[211] it would be a good idea to advise these students to start in Draft space, IMO. For you yourself to move them there sounds good, too (preferably before they're nominated for deletion). And yes, unambiguous promotion/advertising is a reason for deletion. Wikipedia is drowning in advertising and promospeak, and people like Calton attempt to hold back the tide. I hope you will help, too. Your post above sounds like we might all be more on the same page now. I'm also going to ping a couple of people who know a lot about these kinds of projects, and who are also better at the soft speech than either Calton or me (we're tart). @Drmies and RexxS: You got anything, fellows? Am I barking up the wrong tree with my suggestion for starting in Draft space? Bishonen | talk15:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC).
@Bish: Starting in the draft sandbox space is a good idea. All 'student assignments and projects on wikipedia' – not just new pages – should ideally start there, with a note posted on the talk page inviting page watchers to comment and help in the sandbox, before changes are moved into the real page. This sort of collaboration, feedback and discussions, to the extent it is forthcoming, could be useful training, and a means for the supervisor to witness the effort. The sandbox idea may also appear to be "less biting". In the live space, it is tough to remember who is being disruptive needing fast reverts and who is a student needing tender loving care. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Bishonen All good points. We do start all articles in the students' sandboxes, and I should have done more supervision of some of the articles prior to the push to article space. -Reagle (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Reagle, as a teacher of a Wikipedia class, I know it's not easy to supervise a lot of different projects at the same time, and it is also not easy to get students to write neutrally on such subjects. One of the things I do to prevent that is to steer them toward certain topics: not companies or biographies of business people, for instance, but toward things that are verifiable using books and academic articles. This semester I seem to be having an OK time with students writing about "dead" subjects. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd take a stronger line, if I may be frank. My recommendations to course instructors always include negotiation with students on their proposed topic before they begin, including a review of sources that the students intend to use. In other words, if the intention is for their article to end up in mainspace, then the instructor will know if that is likely to be feasible, given the sources they are working from. One of the most discouraging things that can happen to students is to have their efforts deleted. The corollary is that all of the early work has to be done either in Draft: space or in User: sandboxes until such time as the article can survive in mainspace. In general, Draft: space is preferable as a starting namespace, although there is no facility there to export a draft article, for example as a pdf - that function is available from a user sandbox, however. Also, if you're not yet using meta:Programs & Events Dashboard to help manage the course, then I'd thoroughly recommend having a good look at it as many folks find it indispensable. Finally, I'm happy to be available if you need an extra opinion on issues as they arise, or if you want to bounce an idea off someone. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Dreadful happening in the land of Scandabrod
I just had to drop by and check that you are well and safe. I have been so alarmed by the dreadful, secret goings on in your rather beautiful country. Like the Leader of the Free World, I was totally amazed to learn of such dire happenings in the sauna or wherever it is one goes to escape the weather; had it been in a hotbed of discontent like Wales or Luxembourg one could understand it. I am thinking of going to USA (I, of course, will be allowed in) to proffer my advice at the White House; I feel the President and I could be kindred spirits in our mutual understanding of the World's very complex problems. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Dreadful, isn't it? Has anybody made a "Je suis IKEA" userbox or talkpage banner yet? HINT HINT little talkpage stalkers! Meanwhile, dear Lady C, thank you for your support and compassion. A propos, have you seen this rather alarming animation? I understand it represents President Trump shaking hands with the Japanese Prime Minister. Bishonen | talk16:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC).
I Know and understand just what poor dear Donald is going through - no wonder his hair is turning a funny colour; he and I have both suffered the poison pens of the gutter press - some very cruel things were written about my very worthy and selfless efforts to find a peaceable solution to World War II. There are many unscrupulous people at large you know: take the Dutch for instance - have you seen this toadying and wicked attempt to steal the Special relationship from poor beleaguered little Britain? I don't care for the Dutch - all that tilting at windmills and whatnot. I'm not the least surprised that everyone is revolting in Sweden - I blame the nudity, but don't you worry, your country just needs a firm hand and I'm sure President Trump will send the American fleet and lots of nice nuclear submarines sailing up the Gulf of Finland to blast the revolters to smithereens - that's what people need, you know, a firm presence. Isn't your Prime Minister some connection of Neil Kinnock? He's Welsh you know, and they're not a nation to be trusted, they all have big teeth and one must never trust people with big teeth. I feel a great affinity with Mr Trump. Whatever, I'm sure my advice will be well received in Washington, when I get there - I wonder how much they pay, not that money is of the least interest to me. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Lady, I'm sorry but not sorry but I take some offense here. I did see that "Oh Sweden is so good it should be second" video today--that is, I saw maybe a few seconds of it, but the accent rendered it incomprehensible. I think they were talking about potatoes? Anyway, the Dutch video was first, which means we are second. Also, we are naked at least as often as the Swedes, and--I might add--we have the decency to do our naked thing mostly on other people's beaches. I know you don't care for the Dutch, and why should you; they've never done anything to you. But, no, my good lady; banish Sjefke, banish Gunther, banish Matti: but for sweet Hans Brinker, kind Hans Brinker, true Hans Brinker, valiant Hans Brinker, and therefore more valiant, being, as he is, old Hans Brinker, banish not him thy Lady's company, banish not him thy Lady's company: banish plump Hans, and banish all the world. Pardon the interruption. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I have looked at this repeatedly with an eye to a comment about '"Swedes 2 Turnips 1" but, alas, I'm am not clever or witty enough to make the point. And I doubt that The Lady would appreciate even a well-formed reference to such a plebisn note. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I read about this in yesterday's METRO whilst on my way to college, I had to laugh at how stupid the guy really is. Apparently he confused Sweden for a place in Pakistan. What has Trump been smoking? (as an ex Swedish president said) 😂😂 Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 10:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I really can't agree that President Trump is stupid - people said much the same about my great grandfather, the 11th Earl of Scrotum, when he built a brick wall around Scrotum Towers in the 1870s to keep Mexicans out, and how right he was proven when all those Mexican GIs and whatnot arrived here in 1942; swarming us all with that deadful over spiced food. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Your ladyship well knows that the spicy food was merely an innocent misunderstanding wherein a coded message beginning "To Molly" was accidentally transcribed as "tamale". These things happen in wartime. Incidentally, wasn't one of your much earlier ancestors, the 3rd Earl, associated with the Sack of Rome or am I getting my Catherines confused? RivertorchFIREWATER15:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hahahaha, fantastic, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. Thank you very much. Do you mind if I change "jag ar" to "jag är"? (I already did.) You probably went by Drmies's Swedish spelling, but that's a little, well, Dutch. Bishonen | talk15:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC).
To be honest, I went by my keyboard's American English layout. I literally didn't notice Drmies' comment until now, because I saw yours and the light bulb that lit up over my head blinded me to the rest of the page ;) But yes, by all means fix it. My 10-20 word Swedish vocabulary evinces only a Swedish family friend, not any belief in my own ability to correctly write it. My general rule is that my userspace is fair game for anyone whom I haven't explicitly asked not to edit there, and I even make exceptions for that when they're correcting me on something. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The Doctor has never written in Swedish, though he has read in it and discussed dirty thing and politics. And that free second cup of coffee, which also has diacritics--yeah, we're all Americans, so we don't do your fancy little symbols, out of spite. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Not to get anyone off the "Trump is an idiot" bandwagon and "America sucks" or whatever, but just last night, there was yet another riot in Sweden. [212] and according to many Swedes, there is a translation issue with "no-go" zones and indeed, there are what we in the US would call no-go zones. Here is a video where the police inform the news crew they won't enter the area. [213] Let's not take a statement from Trump and blind our eyes. Sir Joseph(talk)17:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting, I thought I knew "many Swedes". They call that "a riot".. ? But go ahead and cloak yourself in ignorance, Sir Joseph, just as the Australian TV crew did. I see they took their background from the notorious Jan Sjunnesson, of the xenophobic hate site Avpixlat, and swallowed what he said whole. And introduced Avpixlat simply as a "news outlet" — heck, we actually have an article about that website. Are you sure my page is the best place for you to share the profundity of your information about Sweden, Sir Joseph? Bishonen | talk18:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC).
I was just commenting, and the fact that the riot was a small one is irrelevant. I also am not sure how a YouTube video from ABC is lying when you see what is happening. Don't take their word for it. Look at all the many videos and news articles about Malmo. I just saw one the other week about a news reported being chased out of the neighborhood merely for wanting to ask questions. You can call me ignorant if it helps you, but when Europe is no longer safe for me to walk around in, I'd take the truth over being politically correct. Is the CBC also a biased news source? [214] If you don't want me to comment on your page, then let me know and I'll gladly take it off my watchlist. I just assumed that you welcomed dissenting opinions. Sir Joseph(talk)18:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Only about 1/3 of Swedish immigrants come from Muslim majority countries (and they ain't all Muslims, I promise you that). I also can't find any demographic information on Rinkeby, the neighborhood where the riots took place. In fact, it's more likely that those rioting immigrants were from the far-off, exotic land of Finland. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh do calm down Sir Joseph; I can't abide people getting humpy - we need to talk about this, we really do: it's a common American problem - you vote these people in, not the rest of us. The Swedish are a delightful race, one only has to watch Mamma Mia to see that. Indeed, you are correct Rivertorch, many of my forbears were frequently connected with sacking Rome (many of the art treasures of Scrotum Towers date to these periods), in fact my nephew is a direct descendant of Charlemagne, who it is academically acknowledged would have been the first President of the USA, had he bothered to discover it (it's true, it really is). My family have always had very close connections to the USA, like many European noble families - if it weren't for the 8th Earl's philanthropic free-passage shipping line, many poor African Americans would still be being eaten by antelopes and grizzly bears in the rain forests of deepest Africa. Does one get any gratitude from these people - No one does not. I am beginning not to care for Americans. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
it's a common American problem - you vote these people in, not the rest of us. And for that, I can only extend my heartfelt apology and hope that in time, you will one day find it in your heart to forgive us poor, uncouth barbarians. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, Your Ladyship, I beseech you not to give up on the Americans, they are in such dire need of your condescension and benevolent guidance. EdChem (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: I've waited a little so as to cool down after your prissy remarks about political correctness and suggesting it 'helps me' to call you ignorant. I can't believe you posted again after the way I responded originally. But I guess I'd forgotten you always have more to say. Please don't post on my page again, unless you wish to ask about an admin action by me, or something like that. Not for conversation. To other users: please don't comment further on Sir Joseph's post, as he would then reasonably wish to respond. Bishonen | talk21:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC).
Symbolic representation of Lady C with another little stalker in thrall
(Non-administrator comment) Okay, I'm now officially one of Bish's talk page stalkers. I can't believe I missed this awesome discussion. >.< Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri88, I'm most grateful for the condescension and guidance (as EdChem appropriately puts it) that Lady Catherine is pleased to post on my humble little page from time to time. It is indeed a magnet for stalkers! Bishonen | talk17:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC).
It's quite true, I am a magnet for men. Since I was a young girl, men have pursued me mercilessly; you are so lucky Mrs Bishonen not to have been born looking like me. However, I am one of the few women to have both brains and beauty, as Winston Churchill used to say: "Lady Catherine has a grasp like no other." And it's because of that grasp, that I fully expect to be appointed as a special adviser at the White House - I am travelling to Washington tomorrow, courtesy of that nice Richard Branson, who's another of my devoted admirers. I often feel that had we met, we could have become entrepreneurial soul-mates, something I intend to be with Mr Trump. I have a feeling they may use the same colourist, I wonder of honey-blonde woudl suit me? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Hijiri 88. Thank you. I hadn't noticed that thread. But as for nobody pinging me, that kind of makes sense. I simply topic banned the user by way of assessing consensus at ANI, not via any profound research of my own. I'd rather let other editors and admins take care of this perhaps-ban-evasion, as I don't feel particularly qualified for the task. Bishonen | talk17:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC).
Meh. I checked his contribs, and like half his edits since the ban were within a week of your closing, on this page. I didn't actually read through it all, but it seemed like the kinda thing you'da remembered. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Could you please clarify application of the editing restriction currently in effect on some US politics related pages? I suggested some changes here, but the challenged material was reinstated by another contributor. Was it my fault? If so, I apologize, ready to self-revert and whatever, but the restriction is so difficult to understand that it probably should never be used. My very best wishes (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: I agree. It should probably never be used, and I'm sorry I ever applied it to any page. I think 2016 United States election interference by Russia was the only one where I did, and it looks like I didn't well understand what I was doing. I've never heard of removing the active arbitration remedies — 1RR plus consensus required to reinstate any edits that have been challenged — but I think I'll do just that, strew ashes on my head, and maybe post a note at ANI. Bishonen | talk16:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC).
Thank you! I think we do not need anything for these pages beyond 1RR and normal policies, such as WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV, etc. Otherwise we will have countless disputes on WP:AE and well-intended contributors being sanctioned. My very best wishes (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Mithering always welcome, Sitush, and why am I not surprised? You remember I said WP:CIR. As the softie I am, I've only warned, for a first violation. It's all merely paperwork anyway, as I suspect he doesn't know he has a talkpage. Hey, I hope you looked at today's edit notice image with the lilypads, I love them. Bishonen in her incarnation as "respected MusicBot", 10:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
Yes, I recall the CIR comment. I was rather surprised to do so but it does suggest that my short-term memory isn't deteriorating quite as much as I feared. And, yes, you may be a softie in this type of situation but it is understandable. We could (should?) perhaps consider an opt-outable on-screen notification equivalent to Blackpool Illuminations or (ahem) the Aurora Borealis for the first couple of months after registration but failing that we have to assume that they do not see the orange doo-dah. The current version is in fact much less conspicuous than prior notifications - and I am not sure whether it really counts as being an alert in mobile view.I saw the pic, and the new one. I have a few somewhere similar to your latest but taken from the top of Macgillycuddy's Reeks, and some others from the rather more exotic Lhotse. I may upload them one day but I suspect the true photographers amongst us would consider them very poor quality. Happy days! - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't really respond favorably to one-sided threats, nor do I appreciate being called a troll. That's uncivil and as an admin, I expect you to know better. If you have constructive concerns regarding the conversation, then make them, and I'll listen and respond appropriately. But don't jokingly chide one user, actually threaten another, completely ignore a culpable third and then contribute your own tepid humor! That's an abuse of your position. See WP:GBU. X4n6 (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
(I've added a header to your complaint, since it isn't connected with the previous discussion; please feel free to change it if you don't like it.) I didn't call you a troll, I called your posts at User talk:EEng, such as this, trolling and personal attacks. I certainly stand by my warning: if you talk like that to other editors again (not just EEng, but anybody), you will be blocked. Your complaint here is a little vague: who was the "culpable third", and wherein were they culpable? Diffs please. I'm sorry if I seemed humorous in any part of my own posts, tepidly or not; it wasn't intentional. Bishonen | talk11:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
I'm not making a formal complaint. I'm following procedure by bringing a concern about your behavior to your attention. But a header of some kind is appropriate, so I'm fine with yours. On both my talk page and anothers' you accused me of "trolling, personal attacks." So to now say you didn't call me a troll is to make a distinction without a difference. The words mean the same thing. You even wrote in the edit log "enough with the trolling." So your claim that you "didn't call you a troll" is disingenuous and provably false. And I don't appreciate it. As for the personal attacks, I'll invite you to go back and review the comments directed at me on that user's talk page. Condescending PAs are this individual's stock in trade. So he got a well-earned taste of his own medicine. So for you to "warn" me and say nothing re: what I had been subjected to, which caused my response? Is nonsense. I'm certainly not asking you to intercede on my behalf and frankly, I don't think that user needed your help either. Everyone there seems quite capable, hell, anxious, to defend themselves. I should also point out that I showed restraint, because that user had violated 3RR with myself and another editor and I elected to not report it.
So if you found concern with my comments and none with the comments which caused them - and which followed them - then, yes, I do indeed have a problem with that. Just as I have a problem with you repeating your threat here, when you're just singling me out for a "warning" for behavior that is commonplace with every other user on that page. That entire clique can say what they will with impunity, but when I respond, I'm at fault? No. I expect you to be even-handed, any biases notwithstanding. Your responses here about my "would-be witty sarcasm" are out of place on a page that revels in them. While your response here, for the same behavior, was an "ask" and not a warning. And ironically, you followed it with your own attempt at humor with: "There are ladies present." You lose credibility when the double-standard and favoritism is so glaring. So while it doesn't matter to me whether you apologize or not for your "warning" (even if I think you should) - I, likewise, make no apologies for asking that you be more even-handed and fair-minded in the future. If you'd ever like to talk to me, please do. I will always be receptive to that. But I won't be intimidated by threats. And definitely not unfair ones. X4n6 (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@X4n6: I advise you to drop this, as you are incorrect in much of what you say. For your information:
"Trolling" is a comment on your edits; "troll" is a comment on you as an editor. Bishonen did the former and not the latter, which is (a) appropriate on-wiki behaviour and (b) an accurate description of your posts. I note that your revert of EEng described him as an editor as obtuse and claimed it was deliberate, which is commenting on an editor instead of commenting on edits.
"He did it first" is an unimpressive excuse in a school playground, and I suggest it is no more impressive here.
Your "restraint" on not reporting a 3RR violation was not restraint, because (a) you commented four days later, so the report would have been stale, (b) EEng made a total of 3 reverts, so did not breach the bright line, and (c) the reverts were not all within a 24 hour period, so a report would have resulted in no action against EEng, and likely a reminder to you to go to the talk page rather than keeping reverting.
Bishonen warned you for actions that violate the civility policy. You would look a lot better if you accepted that you crossed a line and tried to learn from your mistake. A warning is not a big thing, unless you intend to continue to cast aspersions .
Your sarcastic remarks did not come across as clever, and "would-be witty" is a polite description from Bishonen. The approach you chose was never likely to result in any positive outcome or meeting of the minds, I encourage you to reflect on what strategy might have had a chance to achieve your goal.
"There are ladies present" was not humour, it was a statement of fact as Bishonen is a lady, and a well-respected one here on Wikipedia. She was noting that the descent into adolescent humour was neither necessary nor appropriate, something that is sadly common on the male-dominated Wikipedia.
As for Bishonen's alleged double standard in asking for restraint, that is an example of judgement as to what was appropriate in each case. You had been edit warring with EEng, slapped him with a template, and then made snarky comments. One puerile comment from a talk page stalker who is well-known to EEng is not comparable to your actions, and this much milder action was dealt with in a simple request.
Bishonen has not threatened you, she has warned you. You would be wise to heed that warning, especially as the edit summary you used in removing Bishonen's post accuses her of administrator abuse.
Your user page shows more than 10 years of editing (totalling about 4000 edits) and your talk page has no archives and only displays barnstars. Its history reveals warnings about edit warring [216][217][218][219] and personal attacks [220], all since the middle of last year. Coupled with your actions in this case and comments to Bishonen, it is my view that you are heading towards a serious sanction if you don't reflect on your experiences and modify your approach. Your block log shows three blocks for 3RR / edit warring, the most recent in October last year, and you have been edit warring since then. I am not an admin, I have no ability to do anything to you, I am simply offering some friendly advice based on what I see. Please, stop and reconsider. EdChem (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@EdChem: Your interjection into this conversation was neither wanted, nor warranted. But since you've now escalated this to a tempest in a teapot, I'm now compelled to respond.
1) As a would-be grammarian you would, or should, understand that "troll" and "trolling" share the same root. To call someone a troll, is by definition to accuse them of engaging in "trolling" behavior. I said it is a distinction without a difference, because it is. Your argument is simply a debate on semantics, and one which you lose on that basis. See WP:TROLL? to understand my position and my response. But it must also be said, that your imposing yourself into a conversation that did not involve you and was essentially ended, just to further "stir the pot" - is itself a form of trolling. Even if you felt that your contribution was valuable, sometimes it's wisest to just WP:LETITGO.
2) "He did it first" was never my argument. My argument was "cause and effect." Your intentional mischaracterization simply reveals your own bias and exposes your intent to come here to pursue your own narrative. And that neuters any effectiveness of your complaint.
3) You've also reliably mischaracterized my restraint. Had I chosen to file a complaint, it would have been timely. I had every opportunity to do so, as I was on the project during that period. I deliberately chose not and stayed away from that article altogether for a few days and worked elsewhere on the project. That's called a cooling off period. It's also just further evidence that you came here to present your own biased narrative - not to contribute either constructively or objectively. There is certainly no evidence of your good-faith assumption.
4) Civility is a two-way street. The End. And admins are expected to responsibly - and equitably - utilize the tools they've been given.
5) If you have a problem with sarcasm, then you need to take your concerns to that talk page owner. But before you do, I strongly suggest you review that person's user page and it's long-standing policy. Perhaps you can get him to rewrite it. And yes, that was sarcasm. Regarding any likely result, as you can see here - which was the response to this; there was clearly no long-term, or frankly, any damage done whatsoever. So your complaint comes off as more than a little WP:POINTy. Which is itself disruptive.
6) Regarding Bishonen's "ladies are present" comment, that really has nothing to do with me as I made no such comments. Had I, I probably would have invoked WP:CENSOR. But it doesn't happen to be my brand of humor, simply because I find it obvious. But I pointed out in context that, if she was as genuinely offended as her subsequent comments here indicate, I note that those comments only earned a mild rebuke. Contrast that with my alleged "attack," which garnered a warning. And while we're on the topic, I don't concede that I attacked anyone. I asked a pointed question in response to a provable falsehood, in one instance; and commented on behavior from an established editor who knew better and who appeared to be contemptuous of the rules and practices of this project, as though those rules didn't apply to him, in another. Neither instance rose to the level of an "attack." In that regard, what I said was weak sauce. I've seen real and serious attacks on this project. Those didn't even come close. I think you diminish those real cases by painting every minor incident with the same broad brush. Also, by that standard, any spirited disagreement could be called an "attack." No. What's really happening, is that uninvolved users are becoming entirely too thin-skinned and overzealous in rushing to "defend" their buddies.
7) Need proof? Your own words: "One puerile comment from a talk page stalker who is well-known to EEng..." What the hell difference does it make if the user is "well-known?" If a comment is inappropriate, then it's inappropriate. Your defense of the double-standard is weak. It's a weak argument, made weaker still when used in defense of an admin's actions. If policies and practices are not uniformly meted out, then credibility suffers. I said so, because it's true. If justice is truly blind - then she doesn't get to wink, nod and smile at her friends.
8) A "threat" and a "warning" are contextually synonymous. Again, it's cause and effect. You are individually enjoined from common behavior, or this will result. No. Just as my edit summary reference was not an accusation. An accusation would have followed with a formal noticeboard complaint. Again, if you're going to debate semantics, then you're going to have to use more precision in your own characterizations.
Finally, while I'm both flattered and troubled by you wiki-stalking of my traceable history on this project, it's equally instructive that you have, again, reliably elected to misconstrue it. Are you seriously counting every single time a disgruntled user has vandalized my talk page under the guise of a "warning?" That's your standard? Also, while you were sleuthing - and did notice my over ten years on this project, which is longer than yours - you very sloppily assumed the 4,000 edits under this username were the sum total of my contributions here. Perhaps your own relatively modest 12,000 edits in that same period caused your error. But once again, you would be wrong. As this notice on my user page clearly notes, I was an IP editor for years. Additionally, I routinely edited without signing in for several years after I opened this account. And I was a far more prolific IP editor then, easily close to, if not over the 100,000 mark, simply because I had more time; and didn't need to be bothered with people like you stalking my edit history looking for dirt. It was a much easier, simpler time. But once again, as with all your complaints, you made assumptions based on your own predetermined narrative, not any real facts. You assumed. And we all know where that leaves you. But now I'll leave you to have the WP:LASTWORD, as I suspect that's important to you. But feel free to prove me wrong. I've said my say and see no need to continue this any further. Which, frankly, I had already done - and is all you've claimed you wanted all along anyway, right? WP:JDI? So there you go. But now, because of you, I've had to walk away twice. But feel free to say what you will in retort. You won't goad me into a three-peat. Done. X4n6 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Use soft soap and exude this exciting bouquet!
You don't seem to have any objection to wasting your time and mine on my page, X4n6g, but I'm starting to object to seeing you here, especially at such length. I've answered you enough, for my part, and it looks to me like EdChem has, too — I wouldn't advise him to respond. Please stop posting here. If you remain dissatisfied with EEng, me, EdChem, and/or anybody else you've encountered recently (what about MjolnirPants?), your next appropriate action would be to take some or all of us to WP:ANI and see what other people think. Especially me, of course, since you believe I've abused my admin position. Bishonen | talk00:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC).
Thank you EdChem, very good points. As you suggest, I as a woman do indeed have a problem with the kind of, hmmm... masculine humour MjolnirPants evinced on EEng's page. I've seen many women editors complaining that it doesn't make for a welcoming environment for them. (Cue 300 of my own stalkers to protest indignantly that they're men, and they don't think it's funny either.) It's not something I'd joke about. On the other hand, it may not be a big problem on EEng's page — I notice Mjolnir doesn't make those kinds of jokes here on my page, which shows good judgment. And indeed, on any page, puerile jokes can't be mentioned on the same day as attacks such as those X4n6 perpetrated, which richly deserved a warning and not an "ask". The diff I gave above was only one example, and I believe some admins might have blocked directly, without warning. Of course if we do block directly, we get flak for not warning, and if we do warn, we get flak for so-called "threats", but that goes with the territory. It doesn't hurt my feelings. Bishonen | talk16:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
If you look at my track record of potentially offensive humor, you'll notice it tends to pop up abruptly in discussions which seems to be destined to result in sanctions for one or more parties. You might also notice that said discussions tend to quickly shift focus. Not to pat myself on the back too much because I'll be the first to admit that my social graces might generously be referred to as "lacking", but I'd rather make an ass out of myself than sit back and watch talk page drama turn into ANI drama when I can clearly see the gears and happen to have a monkey wrench in my hands. I will, however, chalk this one down as a failure, given this thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, if some of it spreads onto me, that's fine. I can handle complaints and personal attacks. Plus it gets thinned out, anyways. But no, mostly I'm aiming for "HA! That's funny, what were we talking about again?" but I'll settle for "What the hell did this fool just say? " ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
[on cue:] I'd like to protest indignantly that I'm a man and I don't don't think it's funny either. Except I don't do indignation very well (although the rest is accurate). Anyway, I'll just note here that, once again, "Soft Soap 'Shonen" failed to use the admin tools that the community has given her to wreak havoc with. FFS, even a mere peon like me can do warnings. Time to ditch the Hooded Vulture and get a fluffy bunny picture. --RexxS (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, dear RexxS! Always lovely to read your insightful comments. I'm the sweet side of Bishonen, and I have already been indefinitely blocked as not here to create an encyclopedia... a rather pleasing irony. [Slowly unclenches fists, takes deep breaths.] If that had happened to Bishzilla or Darwinbish, you can imagine the ruckus, but fortunately it was only me. And I don't mind at all. I think I'll go thank the administrator for his trouble. Anyway, I don't have admin tools, but I'd like to have them some day, if only in order to pointedly avoid using them, as an example to others. Enjoy the fluffy bunny picture! Soft Soap 'Shonen (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC).
Nor is it even recognized in its day... One day, when I'm gone, you'll tell your kids you knew the mysterious comedic genius who so deftly claimed the title of Captain Hammer (pants) that everone subsequently forgot that some other genius, (Josh Wheaton?) once made a web serial. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Vembu-Technologies page deleted
Bishonen,
I recently contributed to the page Vembu-Technologies. Today I was surprised to find that the page has been deleted. Seems like the page has been deleted after my edit. May I know the reason behind the deletion? Santhosh993 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Santhosh993 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Certainly. You had contributed to the page? I don't see any contributions, as such — only moves. Unless you had contributed to the article under one or more other account names. The article name Vembu-Technologies was an obvious misspelling, which had presumably been created in order to evade the creation protection on Vembu Technologies (an article deleted as obvious advertising per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vembu Technologies). You moved Vembu-Technologies to the strangely named Wikipedia:Vembu Technologies. Perhaps, again, because Vembu Technologies was creation protected? And then you immediately moved it back. See the section [221] above for my opinion of these actions and those of the (perhaps) other people who have been involved in the recreations and moves. You seem to be here purely for the purpose of promoting your company, which is against Wikipedia's policies, see WP:NOTADVERTISING. Please don't recreate the article again, under any name, and please don't create any more accounts. One person is supposed to have one account. Bishonen | talk16:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
Contributed - I meant I tried to correct the spelling (hyphen) of the title although I failed. I work in the company as a junior software engineer. I have been an active Wikipedia editor for sometime now. I do not have any other user account. I had no idea of the history of the title 'Vembu Technologies' being creation protected which seems to have happened way before I joined the organization. After reading [222], I came to know that some user who probably was an ex-employee of the company indulged in some activities violating Wikipedia’s policies leading to the title being creation protected.
Ideally, the user who created the article ‘Vembu-Technologies’ must have requested the adminstrator who “Create Protected” the name ‘Vembu Technologies’ when he had more appropriate content, prepared a draft of the article and upon approval - it should have been published as mentioned in Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Creation_protection, but instead chose to use the name ‘Vembu-Technologies’ without understanding Wikipedia’s policies.
Hi again, Santhosh993. I'm afraid for a company to be notable per Wikipedia's policies, it needs to be mentioned in reliable sources, which are independent of the subject — in other words, Vembu's own pages, or user-generated content such as Glassdoor, don't count. I know the AfD, which found no evidence of notability, was several years ago, but the sources look just as meagre today, as far as I can see after a google search. Compare also Wikipedia:B2B.
The article remaining for over a year doesn't mean it was approved, just that it went under the radar, with its inventive new spelling. I'm sorry I suggested previous accounts might have been you; but they were all obviously single purpose accounts trying to promote the company. Your idea that they might have included "an ex-employee" — trying to harm the company, you mean? — doesn't hold water. So, no, for my part I won't remove the creation protection. (It was added by User:RHaworth, by the way, in case that's useful for you to know.) You can ask for more eyes on this. Indeed I'd recommend you to, because I'm no expert in the field. You can either take it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, or use the deletion review process; see WP:SALT for more advice. Bishonen | talk11:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, Thank you very much for the insights. And I didn't mean "an ex-employee" tried to harm the company, they probably were inexperienced and had no understanding of Wikipedia and its policies. In a rush to create an article for the company, made too many mistakes. Will look into your recommendations. Cheers!!! Santhosh993 (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You have mail
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.
Got it and will reply as soon as I can, Jbhunley, but I'm kind of fully extended today. Please note, anybody else who has e-mailed me — I have by no means forgotten you, either. Bishonen | talk11:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC).
The situation is strange. The reverting editor is listed as performing only this edit. The Talk page of the editor was active only on 12 Sept 2014. And when I previewed this, the article is still blanked. Let me know what turns up. I'm curious. (-:Tapered (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) That wasn’t the deletion that was undone, just the closing of the AfD (which was restored shortly afterward). Perhaps the user wanted to keep the discussion open (obviously not the proper way to go about that), or it may have just been a futile gesture of protest … but regardless of what happens on the AfD page, only a sysop can undo the deletion of an article.—Odysseus147908:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Tapered and Odysseus. Indeed, as Odysseus says, the actual deletion wasn't undone. It was an odd action, to revert my close of the AfD, and I've asked the user nicely about it on their page — perhaps they were trying to do something else. As you say, they're not an experienced editor. Though they did create a company article in September 2014, which was deleted for lack of notability. Deleted contributions don't show up in the contribs list. Wow, did you see MONGO's storm in my edit notice? That's amazing. @MONGO: why is the cloud making that swirly shape? Is that the beginning of a tornado? Bishonen | talk09:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Before I file a formal protest to the deletion of the Dupree article I am required to first contact you under WP guidelines. Let me introduce myself, I created the article, and a major contributor. I am self-reporting I may not be neutral as the creator. There were 3 Deletes, 1 - redirect and 2 Keeps (me and another contributor) yet you said the result was "delete". ?? You just deleted the page of a black conservative who was just named a top 50 African American Republican, (that new article/reference was noted as "Important:Update" at bottom of discussion page). Dupree was honored/named this week in the same company as Dr. Ben Carson, Supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas and Martin Luther King's niece Alveda King.. The optics of Wikipedia deleting Dupree's page AFTER that article was listed in WP is horrible. It reeks of political censorship.(...odd this article was nominated for deletion the week before CPAC, the largest, annual conference for conservative politics that Dupree is a keynote speaker.) My question to you is did you take the time to read the discussion board and see the Newsmax article was added or did you just visually quick sweep it after seeing a few delete opinions and delete it? Please advise. I also ask that Tapered stay out of my exchange with you for the moment for reasons Tapered knows. Cllgbksr (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Did I take the time to read the discussion board? No, I just deleted on a whim. No, I'm kidding, to make the point that your question "did you just visually quick sweep it after seeing a few delete opinions" is a little offensive, and so is your talk of "political censorship". I looked carefully at the discussion and decided the "delete" opinions were more substantially founded. Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments, see WP:CLOSEAFD. Your weighing in after every "Delete" vote to argue passionately that your article be kept didn't as such add any weight to the Keep side. As Tapered pointed out, the only "Keep" votes were from you and a person you had canvassed. On another note, I think it's outrageous that you accuse editors who question the notability of Dupree of "a racist, bigoted and politically motivated response from WP editors who do not approve of black conservatives"[223]. Those are very serious accusations, especially that of racism. You should read WP:NPA. And you say (in the same diff) that your credibility as a neutral WP contributor is being called into question? Bishonen | talk16:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC).
@Bishonen: For the record, please clarify the following: Were you aware the delete votes were cast before the "Newsmax's 50 Most Influential African-American Republicans" [224] article was added to Dupree's page? Yes or no? Cllgbksr (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
(You don't have to ping me on my own page, Cllgbksr.) Yes, I was, but I didn't think it was a gamechanger. Newsmax is an opinion site, and also "Dupree was honored/named this week in the same company as Dr. Ben Carson, Supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas and Martin Luther King's niece Alveda King" is a little... it kind of sounds better than it is, you know. Carson, Thomas and King were number one, two, and three of fifty, Dupree was number 48. Bishonen | talk19:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC).
Bishonen, you left out the news part of Newsmax, "is an American news and opinion website" and "The website has been described as influential in American conservative[2] circles.[3] In 2015, Newsmax was ranked the 3rd most trafficked political news website in the United States by comScore.[4]" The author Frances Rice wrote "A poll by the Joint Center for Policy and Economic Studies reveals that 10 percent of African-Americans, or 2.94 million, voted Republican in the 2014 congressional elections — proving they are more than a “statistical rarity.” "The people who made Newsmax’s 50 Most Influential African-American Republicans [225] list this year went beyond just being recognized personalities. They actively promote the Republican Party’s rich civil rights legacy and agenda for delivering prosperity, security, and freedom for every neighborhood in America, thereby, enhancing the party’s image. Is it your view, of the 2.94M black conservatives in America, and the 50 that were honored by Newsmax for their contributions to the Republican party - Dupree was less recognizable or notable for having only placed 48th on the list?Cllgbksr (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) You may want to rethink your above statements and take some time to reduce the temperature of your rhetoric if you wish to continue engaging in civil discussion. You just put racist words into Bishonen's mouth that I'm quite certain they have never even thought of uttering. Closing a deletion discussion does not reflect any personal opinion about the article subject and your imputation of such motives is both entirely unwarranted and extremely offensive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Don't talk to me like that. In my opinion Dupree is a "mediocre negro", really? I don't care who fucking coined it, don't put it into my mouth. You seem to be calling pretty much everybody a racist. That's taken seriously here. Cut it out before you're blocked for personal attacks. By all means take my close to Wikipedia:Deletion review, which is the proper venue, but get lost from my page. You may or may not be "required to first contact me under WP guidelines" before you file a formal review request, but you're not required to hang around here and insult me. Shoo. Thank you, NBSB. Bishonen | talk20:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC).
Bishonen before I leave your page I would like to apologize for how that was worded and was not trying to impugn your character. Using CNN Hill's words to make a point was not necessary and I should have used better judgment. I have edited out those words and restructured the reply. Again I apologize. Cllgbksr (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Blythwood. I can understand the Japanese thing, but it's incorrect. My username comes from my teenage son going through a manga phase just about the time I signed up on Wikipedia, and he also used to play Momus's song "Bishounen" a lot. I should probably have given more thought to choosing a name, but I wasn't actually planning to stay long. And now the name is the basis of an entire sockfarm — haha — how did that happen? — so I guess I'm stuck with it. Bishonen | talk22:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC).
The oddity of a long absent user suddenly doing a counterproductive edit to the archive of a contentious debate raised the possibility that some tech-savvy user with an ax to grind had used the account as a proxy/sock. Kingshowman, who 'contributed' to the discussion as "Supervoter," comes to mind. If it's not too time-consuming, it might be worth a look-see for someone with the tools and skills. Tapered (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't find what you mention, Tapered — I mean, I don't see my own name. I don't do Twitter, and I look at it a bit uncomprehendingly. But never mind, I can't say I care. Thank you very much for the fine word commentariat, though. :-) Hadn't seen it before! Bishonen | talk11:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC).
Tapered, our notions about Zgilbert26 have eventually come to nothing. It appears they're simply an individual who created an article several years ago, had it promptly deleted, and then logged in once in February 2017 to make an enigmatic revert. Strange but true. Bishonen | talk17:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC).
Sure. I see Widr just blocked the single IP for a month. I've taken my cue from them and blocked the 2600:8800:4481:5b00::/64 range for a month, too. Though I feel that next time, we can start going to three months, because this is getting quite boring. What do you think, Widr? Bishonen | talk21:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC).
I could use a little help trying to get through to RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom. This fairly new editor is displaying a troubling battleground mentality over at Christ myth theory, engaging in a slow edit war because they disagree with the inclusion of content that's otherwise unremarkable. I thought the disruption was a one time thing, but as of today, it has resumed, with two reverts and the addition of editorializing commentary to the article page. Normally, I'd just try to deal with this myself, but this editor has displayed a decidedly confrontational tone whenever anyone has reached out to them. I don't think this rises to the level of an ANI thread, where I need to either ask for specific sanctions or be lambasted for not doing so, but a warning from an actual admin might get through where I've failed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh god, that's so not the kind of article I'm interested in... but who said I'm here to have fun? (I did! I always say WP is a hobby, and you should stop doing it if you longer enjoy it!) Hmm. I'll look. Removing L. Ron Hubbard and his "implants" from the article isn't on the face of it a bad thing for me. But it's how it's done, no doubt. Looking. Bishonen | talk21:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC).
Hmm. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, I started to type some advice to the new editor, but I see s/he has actually just come to the talkpage. As long as they're discussing there, it doesn't really matter that they remove everything from their talk, though of course it looks confrontational. I'll hold off for now; please nudge me again if I miss continued problems. Incidentally, nobody, AFAICS, has warned the user strongly and clearly about adding that comment and told them that kind of thing needs to go on talk, if anywhere. (Just you in an edit summary.) Bishonen | talk21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC).
Yeah, both I and Doug Weller have warned him about the edit warring already. Since there's an admin taking an interest already, I can't really ask for more. They're still being rather ridiculous on the talk page, but I suppose that's better than their participation on their own talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I told them not to do that on the talk page after I reverted. I've already reverted the article twice, and I prefer not to hit my third for today (Yes, I understand there may be mitigating circumstances here, but still). I've asked Doug to take another look at their latest addition (adding a hatnote to the middle of the section questioning the factual accuracy) and the edit summaries they use when blanking their talk page. Sorry to bother you with this, but I suspect Doug will find a way to settle this editor down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.22:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sure they mean well. But they're very combative and not listening to anything. There's a small consensus to keep this info in the section just above, and they've been reverted now by at least 4 editors. I've also noticed they have a history of slow edit warring and posting off-topic talk page comments at Alternative facts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.22:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the misused template and left a note on the user's talk page explaining how it is meant to be used. --RexxS (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
RexxS I saw, and appreciate that. They've responded at their talk with more of the same. Good on you for finally getting a response on their talk page, though. Until now, they've just reverted with a mini-diatribe in the edit summary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.00:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Yer, well, a little progress is better than no progress, I suppose. But user talk pages are mainly for discussing the user (normally their behaviour), or for us peons to be begging favours from admins. Their response about Hubbard's relevance to the Christ myth article really, really belongs on the article talk page, so everybody can discuss it properly. Oh well. I've made a few points on the talk page anyway. --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Jag är Ikea.
This user stands with Sweden.
Je suis Ikea.
A hypnotically staring Great Blue Admin has just caught sight of a promotion-only account and goes to stab it with her sharp beak. (Per discussion below.)
This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia 3 times. And the last admin blocked by Jimbo. The LAST. Don't trifle with her.
Userbox barnstar
Awarded by DHeyward
10:19, 2 September 2015
A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Looks like the COPYVIO results are not showing because the page had been deleted. Thankfully I had archived that page using screenshots. Let me know if you need that for verifications. Avataron (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
It was marked as a copyright violation by Diannaa, one of our most experienced admins with regard to copyright. I've pinged her in the hope that she'll take a look at your complaint. Meanwhile, do you really not understand how disruptive it is to promptly recreate the article under a slightly different name, Media Allegations, Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok, just three minutes after you posted here, without waiting for a response? That's simply a trick, and I don't see how you can have thought it was a proper or honest thing to do. You are creating a lot of work for a lot of people. I have blocked you to slow you down. Bishonen | talk14:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC).
Wayne Dupree again
I am baffled why Wikipedia would remove the Wayne Dupree page. It appears very much like partisan targeting to me. This is the person that removed the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.245.208 (talk • contribs)
(I've moved your post to the bottom of the page, where new posts are meant to go.) Hi. Yes, I'm the administrator who deleted the page. I closed (=summarized) this discussion (please click on the link and read it), and found the consensus to be "delete". That's how it works: somebody can nominate a page for deletion because they don't think the subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards, then other people discuss it, then an admin makes the call. Anybody can create an article, and if we didn't have some kind of procedure for assessing notability, we'd drown in them. Anyway, my own opinion doesn't come into it, I just summarize. Please note that if a person is found to be "not notable", it does not mean that we're calling that person unimportant! It merely means that there's not enough support in reliable independent sources to support notability as Wikipedia defines it. Bishonen | talk10:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC).
I read no partisan commentary from any of the commenters during the discussion. Please quote them, if they exist. This looks like a tactic to divert attention from the fact that Dupree is not yet notable by Wikipedia standards. Tapered (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks you for your note on my user page. Frankly, I was surprised at the ban. This relatively brief interaction is our first ever (that I can recall at least).
It started just before when we had both contributed to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#user:184.145.42.19 Discussion after closure when the defendant user:184.145.42.19 popped in to express disgust that no one had told him the ANI had been re-opened. BMK was the one who had re-opened the ANI without notifying the defendant, and I had since been on the defendants talk page, and didn't notice that he hadn't been notified.
So I replied to the defendant to say that they should have been notified by BMK or myself and that I'm sorry. [227]
BMK then came and swore at the defendant (he seemed bothered that he had the temerity to return) and then told me "Don't ever apologize for me again"[228] Which seemed odd, as I put the blame on lack of notification on both BMK and myself, and then said I apologise instead of We apologise.
So I called BMK on both things and asked him to now apologize to both of us.[229]
Meamwhile, he's simultaneously come to my talk page, and made a similar comment about not apologize for him. And asked about my background, noting my paltry experience, lack of edit history, concluding that I shouldn't be on ANI.[230]
I was a bit taken aback by his tone, but left what I thought was a civil reply, to which he replied saying he was being civil but blunt.[231]
So I bluntly told him what he'd done wrong. My second ever edit on his talk page.[232]
And he said I had clearly apologized for him (how?), misquoted me (why?), asked me to stay off his talk page,[233] and posted that "ban" notice on my page.[234]
And that's all there ever was between us.
He can "ban" me if he wants to; that's fine. My objection was he referred to this as a "ban" and said that "I am required to by Wikipedia policy." He over-exaggerated it a bit, perhaps in an attempt to intimidate. Instead of just politely asking me to stay off his page he chose to use words that were wikilawyering. (I've since observed, he's "banned" a lot of people - so many he even has a template[235] at the bottom. He calls it 'Bunting for a home run!)
wikilawyering - I'm guilty as charged. One of my weaknesses is that I'm not very good at not doing the same thing back to someone after they do it to me. Sometimes I just use their own words a bit and post it back. He wikilawyered, so then I did too. I shouldn't do that.
Obviously "banned" means you're not welcome there - yes. But the word "ban" has a meanings in Wikipedia. He was wikilawyering.
I'm not surprised BMK warns you off his page when you post offensive psychobabble - look at my previous edits. There was not one thing like that previously. What can I say - I'm not perfect. And I think he'd been rather incivil to me - this was my first (and last) incivility.
supercilious advice about "improving the encyclopedia" - That was just me acknowledging his own comment using the same phrase from his first post to me at[236] - I'm glad you think it's supercilious, because that's what I thought too actually when he wrote it!
Do you repost those things here on your own page because you're so proud of them?- One, I wanted a record of it. Two, yeah, I was kind of proud of a couple of things there - particularly reusing his own supercilious language!
Incidentally, what's this about your "policy" stated at the top of your talkpage - It is my policy. I've worked that way for over a decade. As you probably recall there was a lot more of that back in the day, before notifications, and these new-fangled pings. I was also reusing his word "policy". Bad nfitz.
that requires you to respond on the other person's page - "requires" was wikilawyering, guilty as charged. I was using his made-up policy against him.
How can a principle you made up yourself require you to do anything? - guilty as charged
does it really require you to repost the other person's post on theirs, as if they had written it there, which is quite confusing? - I've always done that. Look at my edit history. So I didn't do that out of spite or anything. I started to do it, because back when everyone posted replies on each others pages, you couldn't follow the conversation after a while. So I just got in the habit of copying the thing I was replying to, to be polite and clear. To tell the truth, with all the pinging and notification these days, I've been thinking that my "policy" is getting a bit stale, and perhaps I should just do it the way everyone else seems to do it now.
you repost your own post here, supposedly to illustrate "long-term issues of Beyond My Ken", leaving your "principle" full of holes. - I don't normally do that.
Leave BMK alone. I don't only mean don't post on his page, I also mean don't troll him on yours or elsewhere. - I will leave him alone. I made that very clear in my post. You'll note that when I copied it to my page, I removed the ping that was originally there, so that I didn't inadvertently ping him. No guarantees that in 5 or 10 years I might not do it by accident in a discussion - because honestly, I forget things over time. I have no intention of trolling him. I admit my parting shot was a bit trollish (I'm not perfect).
Thanks again for your comments, and the chance to defend myself (if you've read this far). I hope that after reading my explanation, that you'll at least see where I was coming from, if you can't forgive me. No hard feelings. Nfitz (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You both lost your tempers. But you seem to have read BMK's post hastily. Either that, or you quote him in a misleading way. "My objection was he referred to this as a "ban" and said that "I am required to by Wikipedia policy."" You seem to be suggesting, by this partial quoting, that he said he was required by policy to ban you? Or maybe that you were required to respect his ban? Would that be why you say he was wikilawyering, and that's why you did the same thing back, "using his made-up policy against him"? Well, he wasn't; he never said or implied you were required by policy to respect his ban. There was no made-up policy for you to parody. He was telling you to stay off his page unless you were required by Wikipedia policy to post there. You know, such as, you're supposed to alert him to having mentioned him on ANI.
You say "One of my weaknesses is that I'm not very good at not doing the same thing back to someone after they do it to me... I shouldn't do that." No, really not, especially if they didn't. I'll say no more about it. But, while I don't particularly want any quarrel to take off here on my page, I'm pinging BMK for information, if he cares. Not sure why you talk about me forgiving you — nothing to forgive, so don't worry about that. Bishonen | talk11:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
PS: "BMK then came and swore at the defendant"? Oh, come on, now! Context! Did you not notice the post he was responding to, and quoting? It's right there in the same diff. Not that I think swearing is so heinous in any case. But doing it as a quote back to somebody? I'd expect you to approve, since it's so much what you do yourself. Bishonen | talk11:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
Actually, I never lost my temper. I was only bemused by his unfriendliness when he "banned" me. I was quite civil in everything I wrote until then. I get the impression he's someone who isn't good at handling being told they are wrong - especially when they are in the wrong. And his reaction is to then simply try and eliminate the presence of the person who did that, than simply confront the issue. So, he's wrong ... everyone's wrong. Apologize and move on.
And speaking of being wrong ... I did indeed misread the bit about policy in his post - odd, I read that more than once. Either way, the whole thing was supercilious puffery - which I don't think belongs anywhere near the project. And it's pretty easy to see (for example when you search for the words in his template), that this has come up again and again in the past.
Swearing at the defendant. Yes, he was doing the same thing I do (the irony) - I'm guilty as charged there. Much of what I reacted to, is that he was the one who had failed to notify the defendant that the discussion was re-opened, and not failed to take responsibility for it, but in the very same edit [237] also attacked me for apologizing for it, claiming I had apologized for him. Which I most certainly had not, as others have noted[238]. If he hadn't simultaneously attacked me, I doubt I'd have responded at all. I think there's a major WP:AGF failure in his assumption that I apologized for him. In retrospect, I probably did lose my temper a bit when I made my response[239], but I think I remained civil, but annoyed.Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a root cause if that neither he or I read closely enough sometimes. Oh well, there's probably no point in rehashing the whole thing, and just move on. I appreciate the candor. Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Part of this, is that I (like many other peons here) feel I've been unfairly treated by a few admins in the past - guilty until proven innocent and all that. Clear failures of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. It's almost like some admins feel that an important pillar here WP:5P4 doesn't apply to them (the same ones often seem to think that WP:5P5 doesn't exist either) - at least when dealing with lowly users. So when I see others being picked on (even if they do deserve it sometimes), or I detect that kind of attitude, I speak up. Which then makes me a target with someone who has that type of belief. (I'm not referring to BMK here, I'm thinking of older experiences - perhaps I misread him). Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm feeling disappointed you didn't respond to me here or say something on my talk page, but instead felt a need to have a go at me at [240]. I'd have thought that was generally an inappropriate comment for an ANI thread and should have been elsewhere (though I'm having problems finding the guidelines for ANI discussions - I'd appreciate if you'd point me to them). Obviously you feel I'm overlinking, though there's nothing about overlinking for talk pages on either WP:Overlink or WP:MOS. I don't think I've shown any unwillingness or inability to civilly (and I thought friendly) discuss my skills. Nfitz (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I feel you're overlinking? No, I feel you're swarming all over the place. Do you realize how many times your name currently appears on the ANI page? Also, I feel you're sharing too much trite wisdom there, and telling people things they already know.. You're focusing on an unimportant detail in my post (the linking). There's nothing about linking on talkpages in MOS, really? What a lot of guidelines you know. What you're by contrast ignoring, both in your ANI response and here, is my main point: that your finger-wagging is unlikely to have a good effect on the people you direct it at, probably because they're mostly grownups. A bad effect, more like. Resentment. Aren't you interested in the effect? I'm not aware of any "guidelines for ANI discussions". We don't have every last thing codified. ANI etiquette is a loose baggy work in progress, like all the other traditions and practices here. I used ANI to comment on your posting on ANI because I thought it more direct, to comment right below an example of the kind of post I was objecting to. But YMMV; TJW used your page for the same purpose; and you were equally defensive about that, and wanted to know about the guidance and styleguide for who should contribute on ANI and how. Who do you see writing these styleguides? There are none; we're all on our own when it comes to writing and acting appropriately. But I'll take a shot at a short ANI styleguide for you, if you think it'll help: Look in thy heart and write; introspect about your own motives; cogitate about the effect your post may/can/will/won't have on others; and be open and sensitive to the culture that's all around you. Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk01:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
I don't feel I've been defensive with TJW - I've asked him for help in understanding where his objections are, so I don't repeat, and he won't (can't?) provide any. I'm scratching my head about who YMMV is. Garchy popped in, but I pretty much agreed with him. I'm missing something about MOS, as I'm not seeing much about talk pages at all, let alone linking. Finger wagging (goes back to ANI to read my post) ... you mean the "Go talk it out nicely. Don't WP:BITE and be WP:CIVIL. part of it". Surely a grownup would then stop and reflect on the whole thing, and look back to where they went wrong - they are grownups after all. You think resentment would come of it? Personally, in my run-ins with people at WP:ANI back in the day that created resentment, is when those responding, tossed AGF out the window, were rather uncivil about it, and then got their back up when they were called on it and whatever other policy they'd decided wasn't convenient that day - which tended to back and forth a bit until someone else came in and called them on the BS. But that's me. I thought the person I responded to was being a dick; even if he may have been technically right. Resentment ... hmm. What would you have told him ... or could still tell him I suppose given it's open? Nfitz (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
You're doing everything perfectly and the people objecting to your style are totally wrong. We get it, in fact we've seen it before. However, please add me to the list of those who believe your policy of flouting talk-page norms by copy-pasting comments between pages is confusing and pointy. Many years ago, some editors replied on the poster's talk, but pasting junk was not fashionable even then. In recent years, the silliness of those old habits has been understood by pretty well everyone. By the way, posting walls-of-text laden with links has also gone out of fashion—most people know to press PageDown whenever they see stuff like that because experience shows that trying to find whatever point is being made in such a blancmange is a waste of time. If you have a response to a comment, just make the response and leave the blue links for beginners. When someone suggests that a particular IP is a disruptive editor, probably a sock, who is being fed by attention, they are making a substantive claim. The only reasonable response would be to investigate the claim and back off if it seems plausible (say nothing), or refute the claim with evidence. Arguing is apparently important for some people, but my suggestion would be to have the last word and then drop this particular debate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I'll reply over at your talk page, as I'm probably wearing out welcome here! Nfitz (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Now consider that you have received some criticism, Nfitz, and go back to your own post above: "Surely a grownup would then stop and reflect on the whole thing, and look back to where they went wrong". I can't help you further; please be done arguing on my page. Bishonen | talk09:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
I didn't really see much of this as arguing. I saw it as discussing. And a very helpful discussion at that - perhaps you can't help further, but you have helped. Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
To account or not to account
Regarding today's discussion of the disruptive IP, I wanted to explain more privately. Said editor has deposited my IP location information on the Talk page in question. Were I to switch to using an account now, my recognizable style and typing quirks would make it clear I was the same editor and would effectively out that account with regard to geolocation. To prevent this I would avoid editing the page in question under that account, page protection would block me from editing with or without an account (at least unless/until my pending request to oversight that IP information is acted upon). 50.37.123.131 (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I understand it can be undesirable to switch from IP to account in the midst of a fight. Though that's not so much because that IP has posted your location information. When you use an IP, anybody can see your location — it's just a click away. Look at your own talkpage. (I know it's a redlink; that doesn't matter.) See the "Geolocate" link? Anybody can geolocate an IP, any IP, just by clicking on "Geolocate". That's one of the reasons, indeed, for creating an account. For doing it from the beginning, I mean; I quite understand your reasons for not wanting to do it now. Anyway, I see you have posted some diffs for the other IP range on ANI; I'll take a look. Good luck. Bishonen | talk17:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
Yes, I know they can look it up, but most people will not go to the effort. When someone puts it right there on the Talk page, that significantly reduces the effort involved. (I didn't want to delete it immediately because it would likely have just brought on another outburst from the other IP, or at least drawn attention to it. How long does an oversight request usually take?)
You are right about the second (temporally first) IP range: likely stale, and the editor really went from simple annoyance to disruption after shifting to the more recent range, so probably not worthy of action. 50.37.123.159 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know; I doubt they'll oblige in any case, since it's so un-secret anyway. If it's just a matter of whether people have to take more or less trouble, removing it from the page would surely go a long way. Who reads histories? (Well, I do, but obviously not most people.) Unfortunately the talkpage is such a mess I can't find it to blank. Give me a quote — a few words — I can search for, and I will. Bishonen | talk20:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
Good thinking. But they haven't told me where it is yet. I don't much feel like combing through the history, when it would be so much simpler to do a search for a phrase. If 50.XX cares, I expect they will eventually tell me where it is. Bishonen | talk23:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
Oh, right at the top? I couldn't face looking at the history, sorry. Revdel'd. 50.XX, it's as diappeared as it needs to be; check the history and you'll see what revdel does. Thank you, RexxS. Bishonen | talk00:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
? It's supposed to be already invisible, because of the way it's placed in the history, surely? Isn't that how it works? (Are you saying you can see the text? I'll check tomorrow if Bishzilla can.) Also, when I tried to revdel it separately just now, the system told it "already had the required visibility settings". Mind you, I never did understand revdel 100%. Bishonen | talk00:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
It was visible to me and the rest of the peons when I posted the comment, but it has disappeared now. Perhaps revdel is "smart" enough to hide the intermediate diffs, but takes time to catch up? Beats me, but it's fixed now. --RexxS (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I've figured out what happened, having done another revdel in the meantime: the system was talking through its... hat. All good now, anyway. Bishonen | talk09:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
Hey, 50.XX! Another IP, 85.84.115.9, has just turned up and vandalized Lordship of Biscay and its talkpage. I was rather glad to see it, as it made it much easier to block the relevant range, 85.84.112.0/21. Bishonen | talk17:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
Well, I don't know if you're reading this. But it has turned out my rangeblocks were still insufficient, I've had to semi both article and talk. Bishonen | talk14:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC).
@RexxS:, I'm generally reluctant to ask for sanctions, but in this case I'm leaning towards "Yes, it's time." This editor seems to have a great deal of difficulty accepting that they can be wrong about anything. For an example of pretty much this exact same issue, but with an editor willing to accept correction, see the section Removing Dorothy Murdock's claims at the exact same article talk page. Contrast that with Rosa's tactics. I don't think there are any DSes which apply to this, so I believe an ANI thread is the way to go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Bishonen I typed the last having read, but for some reason not grokking your comment. I'll wait for you before starting an ANI thread. If you're willing to take action (or if Doug investigates the ping here and takes action himself) then there will be no need for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I just blocked for 48 hours, with, I hope, an explanatory block notice. This user is well-informed, I think, and could be an asset, as soon as they figure out how Wikipedia works. I'm reluctant to start with a full-on topic ban or indefinite block. Bishonen | talk16:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
Oh, arhh. I used your code, since I wanted to put it on the right hand side of the page, so I should probably go back and fetch the new code. Thanks for making it, it's very handsome. Bishonen | talk19:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
Sorry all, missed it. I've just tried to set him straight about reverts as he insists he didn't revert. And again deal with a mistaken claim of being one-sided. I'm not dealing with the unblock request as I'm hoping yet another new to him admin will. Doug Wellertalk20:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Have discretionary sanctions not been applied to that article (and the related Historicity of Jesus) yet?
I recall an Arbitration case back in 2014, but my involvement was peripheral and ended early on, so I don't remember how it ended except that the initiator's TBAN was upheld. It seems like the project would be no worse off if admins had the authority to ban anyone found causing further disruption there. It's a POV-magnet, because it's one of few topics where the scholarly establishment is in (very) basic agreement with fundamentalist Christianity (i.e., both agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical person) but the former (with perhaps one exception) have done an abysmal job teaching the general public, and so a lot of otherwise smart and rational atheists and other non-Christians have become convinced that the whole "no serious scholars reject the historicity of Jesus" is a lie told by their local churches along the lines of "a growing number of scientists are questioning evolution". I have no problem admitting that, growing up in Ireland as I did (where the Catholic Church dominate the school system), I too found the mythicist idea appealing when I was a teenager. I don't think I ever edited Wikipedia to that effect, but it wouldn't surprise me if I had.
Like the electric cigarettes article, it's a topic that should not be inherently controversial, but because of unrelated societal factors surrounding it it attracts tremendous controversy on Wikipedia.
You can see all topics under discretionary sanctions here, Hijiri 88 (scroll down a bit). I can't see anything that fits. If you want ArbCom to put ds on these articles, you'll have to ask for them at WP:RFAR, I think. Right, @Doug Weller:? I doubt it'd do any good, though. ArbCom only takes on stuff that the community has tried and failed to deal with — really infected, out-of-control areas. Arbitration is supposed to be the last resort, as I'm sure you know. You'd need ANI discussions to point to at he very least.
However, Scientology is under ds. If you're concerned about people removing/adding Hubbard's ideas about Jesus, I suppose that might be a Scientology ds matter. Bishonen | talk12:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
Just for the record, I don't think sanctions are necessary. This topic gets a lot fewer outright cranks than pseudoscience articles do. The level of disruption is consequently much lower. The only problem is that people editing in religious articles -especially articles which touch on the intersection of history and religion- tend to be incredibly emotionally attached to their views, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.12:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Our Friend is back
Hello my pal. Our friend https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Hemant_banswal has finished his two weeks suspension, and is already exchanging feature photos in articles with his own. The issue I have here this time isn't so much the quality of his photograph, but insistence on changing "feature article photos", without having the courtesy of going to the articles talk page, and getting a consensus. If he should run into an article that has "no feature opening photo", I would have no issue with him putting one of his there if it is a quality photo. But his habit of booting a feature photo in exchange for his own without consensus is inexcusable. Thanks→ Pocketthis (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Take it to AN for community review. The request was filed at 21:01 UTC. There was one comment suggesting "cut him some slack", and then a decision was made by one admin at 21:41 UTC, a mere 40 minutes after the request. That's a denial of any opportunity for debate, and a decison taken unilaterally without consideration of even the small amount of debate that had occured (no slack was cut). The block was at the extreme end ("initially up to a month") of what was available, and well beyond what Wikipedia:Blocking policy #Duration of blocks indicates as standard: "While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards: incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations". --RexxS (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
It appears that Arbcom specifically mentioned protecting the editor's talk page as an available remedy. "The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block." I would suggest that you restore the protection unless User:Sandstein is OK with lifting it. Otherwise we might start going in circles unnecessarily. If Sandstein considers his protection to be an arb enforcement then another admin mustn't unilaterally lift it due to the well-known rules. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.
I've carefully examined both the log on that page and the DS log. The DS log makes no mention of sanctions on TRM (and it shouldn't). The case log carries the following entry from today:
As everyone can see, the sanction that is logged as "performed under the authorisation of a remedy" is a one month block. Any other sanction which may have been applied was not logged and is therefore unquestionably not an ArbCom sanction, so is subject to reversal like any other admin action. Given Sandstein's notorious inability to listen to reasoned argument, I wouldn't have advised 'Shonen to waste her time in taking up the matter before restoring talk-page access. I commend her on doing the right thing, and in such a timely manner. I'm almost at the stage of offering to run as an admin with the sole purpose of taking part in AE, just to restore some common sense to the process. --RexxS (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Bishonen: The talk page protection, which is explicitly provided for in the relevant remedy, is an arbitration enforcement action and you may therefore not unilaterally overturn it. (I did not log it because it is not a block, restriction, ban or sanction.) The protection does not prevent an appeal because an appeal may also be submitted per e-mail. Please restore the talk page protection within an hour of your next edit following receipt of this message. Thanks, Sandstein 06:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Sandstein: With respect, if TRM is abusing his talk page (and despite having multiple run-ins with TRM, I'm not certain he's doing that) surely the logical step would be to revoke talk page access? Why protect it? Vanamonde (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and I might have done that, but the remedy does not permit revoking talk page access. It only allows full talk page protection. There may be reasons for why ArbCom made that decision, perhaps something to do with baiting or proxying? It's not my job as enforcing admin to second-guess that decision, only to enforce it. Sandstein 06:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sandstein: You may revoke talk page access pursuant to the normal blocking policy; it would not be an AE action in that case because it isn't under the remedy. The remedy does not say anything about being unable to remove talk page access, and continuing conduct on a user talk page that resulted in the block is a strong rationale for removing talk page access under the blocking policy. Having said that, this clearly was an AE action, and the protection must be restored. As for why protect the page, I expect that the Committee intended that provision to prevent grave-dancing or other behavior that might provoke TRM while he's blocked, resulting in further sanctions. Personally, I think such a protection is in the best interests of both the community and TRM himself to minimize unnecessary drama during the block. Note that that only works if administrators don't edit through the full protection, which was occurring earlier (and should not have been). ~ Rob13Talk07:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I saw the first ping, I was just busy. I am not, obviously, as well versed in the ins-and-outs of arbitration policy as you folks; but intuitively, it seems to me that authority to block must include authority to take away talk page access with the block. While I can understand the concern over grave-dancing on the part of stalkers, or alternatively over TRM going into a rage and saying stuff he will later regret, my reasoning is as follows (admittedly my only interactions with TRM are at WT:DYK). What do we as a community want, ideally, from any disciplinary action against TRM? Ultimately, we want him to go back to creating and reviewing content (which he is good at) without unnecessarily getting under the skin of about ten people a day (which, currently, he is failing at). Removing his ability to edit his own talk page, in my view, undermines this objective in the long term, because it is in some ways treating him as a child. He is on his own talk page, where his snark can and will be ignored: so why not just leave him to it? Vanamonde (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sandstein: Full protection of TRM's talk page is either a sanction or it's not. For this case, you are obliged to log any "block, restriction, ban, or sanction taken as an arbitration enforcement action" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man #Enforcement log. You did not log the full page protection because, you assert, "it is not a block, restriction, ban or sanction." in that case, your action is not protected by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions #Modifications by administrators, which states "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without ..." (my emphasis). I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways. The page protection was vindictive and unnecessary, and your entire decision at AE was hasty and ill-judged. You should not be surprised when your actions are reverted by other admins when they are so far from what is reasonable, because WP:AC/DS #sanctions.modify was never meant to be used as an excuse for misuse of admin powers. --RexxS (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ignoring the above evidence that TRM is an unblockable, Sandstein, you probably do want to log the full protection. It's an action taken under a remedy, which is what's intended to be logged as a record that ArbCom can then reference as needed in the future. ~ Rob13Talk09:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Your logic is faulty. Nothing I've adduced here could possibly be interpreted as showing that TRM is unblockable. Indeed, he is blocked, and anyone who can read can see that I have made no argument that he should not be. However, the action taken to fully protect the page is a different beast. There was no evidence adduced that such an action was needed, or even desirable, which means that it was not preventative. By his own admission, Sandstein believes that when he took the action, he was not performing "a block, restriction, ban or sanction". Are you arguing that his judgement in that was defective? If so, it speaks to the lack of wisdom exercised. It would certainly be foolish to attempt to retrospectively add the page protection to the log now, wouldn't you agree? What is absolutely certain is that any admin who attempts to re-impose the full protection now would be indisputably wheel-warring. --RexxS (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Sandstein, the talk page is not currently protected. Are you planing to re-protect it? I do not think that would be wise in the present circumstances; no one wants a contest over something like that. The rulez allow you to protect that talk page, but one of the reasons for allowing that possible action was to prevent gravedancing, and I don't see that happening. If you desire to stop TRM from accessing his own talk page, you can revoke his access to it--I fully realize I am to some extent repeating what Bish and Rexx have already said. I suppose I'm not here as Da Arb, but rather as someone who seeks clarity (the reason for the protection) and de-escalation. What I can tell you is that Da Arbz are talking about this, of course; I suppose this is the initial stage of a conversation and one of the topics is whether this or that needs to be tweaked. But let's try and deal with this particular situation first. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, I do not intend to re-protect the talk page myself. I am awaiting a reply by Bishonen, and will then decide whether to request that the Arbitration Committee sanction her for her out-of-process reversal of an arbitration enforcement action. Sandstein 15:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Sandstein, I thought your protection had to be a mistake. The only non-admin who had edited the page at that time was TRM himself. The procedure "revoke talkpage access" exists for the purpose of preventing the blocked owner of the page from editing it. There was no reason to stop everybody else below the rank of admin from commenting. (I still don't see any gravedancing, 28 hours after I unprotected, so the event doesn't seem to show the danger of that was imminent.) You say above (replying to Vanamonde) essentially that you protected the page because protecting was allowed for in the relevant remedy and revoking tpa wasn't. It's not the case, however, that everything on Wikipedia that isn't allowed for is forbidden. The remedy didn't say "Talkpage access must not be revoked". Of course you could have revoked tpa. Not as an AE action, no, but what's the big deal with that? Revoke is revoke.
You stated above, when you were asked why you didn't record the protection in the log, that it was because it wasn't a sanction. That makes sense IMO, because page protection surely isn't a sanction. I have to agree with RexxS above[241] that that's a big problem: if it wasn't a sanction, it's not protected by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions #Modifications by administrators: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator" bla bla.
Anyway. Just for completeness, and not relevant to whether or not you take me to ArbCom for undoing your AE action: I'm also opposed to revoking tpa. (I'm kind of for the block itself, though I believe it was overlong.) I'm nearly always against revoking tpa for venting against a block. It seems like adding insult to injury. But anyway, tpa wasn't revoked. BTW, I disagree with the people who have said you should have waited for more comments at AE. That's really OT here, though, and I've posted a detailed comment about it on AN. Bishonen | talk15:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
(talk page stalker)I took a look at this solely due to it's "interesting factor" in that an admin has turned in their mop under cloudy circumstances and been subjected to a block as the result of their behavior. I don't really have an opinion on the outcome of this discussion, either. But I will say that the direction of arguments (in the formal sense, not to imply that this is a particularly heated discussion) in this thread is a little troubling. All sides seem to be flirting with -if not outright engaging in- wikilawyering. Now, I'll probably get quite a bit of chastisement for saying so, but I would like to humbly suggest that the best course of discussion would be to answer the question: Should TRM's talk page be protected? Not whether the prior protection or unprotection was 'proper'. Now, feel free to expound in great detail why I'm wrong, and how arrogant it was of me to jump in here to tell the rest of you what you're doing wrong. I'll not defend myself beyond saying that I was just offering my two cents, as a fairly disinterested third party. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Haha, if you think we're wikilawyering, you should have seen the last time I was taken to RFAR for unprotecting a blocked user's talkpage![242] There hasn't been any gravedancing since I unprotected, which it has been suggested was a concern on the part of arbcom here. I don't know if it was a concern on Sandstein's part; if he has said so, I haven't seen it. Indeed I haven't seen him say why he protected at all — you'll have to ask him. That protection was allowed for is not what I'd call a reason, and I refuse to believe he thinks so, either. The page is better unprotected — just look at it now. Unprotected is the default state of pages. Bishonen | talk16:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
@'Shonen, I can tell you why Sandstein fully-protected TRM's talk page – straight from the horse's mouth, as it were – this edit:"According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited, "the enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block." I note that in your comment above you continue to engage in prohibited conduct, namely, referring to others as "shit admins". Consequently, your talk page is fully protected for the duration of the block."
And that's the problem: he chose to fully protect a talk page instead of revoking talkpage access, almost certainly in the mistaken belief that that action could not be overturned. It's clear from his subsequent comments that he did not make his decision by exercising judgement about what measure would have been most appropriate, but simply picked full-protection because ArbCom had mentioned it as being with an admin's discretion (but with no understanding of the reason why ArbCom chose to mention it), and he thought that by calling it an "AE action", it would become unchallengeable. That's the very worst reason for picking a measure to discourage TRM from using phrases like "shit admins". There's a certain irony there, that I assure you won't be lost to ArbCom if I'm forced to take my case to them. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Qué tal Taichi?.
Ya veo que por aquí sigues siendo un baboso-infantil igual que en la española. También te tengo fichado en la japonesa.
Maragm, I've just noted above and on ANI that I've had to semiprotectLordship of Biscay and its talkpage, because the individual has access to such a big range that I can't block it. I honestly don't see any point in blocking the individual IP, since it keeps jumping about. Me, blank the insults? Well, if you like, but you can just as well revert them yourself, as you have been doing. Question: Would you like me to semiprotect your talkpage as well, for a couple of weeks? That will keep the IP out effectively, which blocks won't. Bishonen | talk14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC).
Yes, if possible, semiprotect it for a couple of weeks. This IP and similar ones, on the same subject, have been harassing and insulting me, accusing me of being a sockpuppet of the 50....IP (good edits) and other users who revert him. Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Maragm: Sorry you have to suffer through such insults and harassments, please know I admire your work and the quality of reliable sources you bring. Nice birds pic in the MONGO box. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to bring some flowers, and what better choice than the Mimosa, the symbol of Int'l Women's Day in Italy and Russia. Thank you Bishonen and @Ms Sarah Welch: for your support and kind words. --Maragm (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
First you have to be an experienced editor who knows a lot about how Wikipedia works, because the duties of adminship can't be carried out very well unless you know your way around. And secondly you have to have interacted with others in a good way, which makes them trust you and think that you'd be a good admin who doesn't abuse the admin tools (did you read about the admin tools at WP:ADMIN?). Then you can apply for adminship at WP:RFA, and other people can comment on your application. If you take a look at this successful application, and this unsuccessful application, you'll get a bit of a feeling for what's required. Believe me, you're not ready, Wordsighn, and you won't be until you have acquired more Wikipedia skills. Applying before you're ready is a not a good idea, because then the discussion can easily become a depressing rejection-fest, as somebody put it in the second discussion I linked to. There's more advice in the Guide to requests for adminship. Bishonen | talk21:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
Alternatively, you can have 'zilla monster as your PR manager. "Nice community you have here. Be shame if Bishonen could not protect it and nice community turned into the Hellmouth." --NeilNtalk to me22:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, little NeilN. Be a shame if Bishonen couldn't unprotect stuff, too, wouldn't it? Did you know she schlepped to RFAR once for, guess it, unprotect talkpage of blocked user? It her favorite thing, unprotecting those. (Don't worry, young Wordsighn, we just chatting.) bishzillaROARR!!22:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
Oh, the little 'shonen unblocked someone? Who can remember? [Resentfully.] 'Zilla didn't have tools in 2015! Bishonen have to do all the unblocking! And never make any brilliant blocks like 'Zilla! Bah! bishzillaROARR!!00:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC).
Sorry to bother you, but an IP[244] or two[245] just showed up on ANI and requested that I be TBANned from a topic area I hardly touch anyway. I honestly have no idea who it could be, but the Christianity comment kinda-sorta reminds me of Til. But I doubt it's him, because he didn't use any homophobic slurs. It also seems to be interested in United States right-wing politics; I can vaguely recall conflicting with someone on Talk:Inauguration of Donald Trump, but I just checked and they seem to still be in good standing, so it's kinda incredible that they would log out to troll me.
No matter who it is, I kinda think the comments (and my take-AGF-to-suicidal-levels premature responses) should be blanked, but since I was the target I might draw more heat if I did it myself. Would you mind taking a look and judging for yourself?
I was gonna say, I don't think it's Til. Til has never been much of a one for posting on ANI. And look at this guy: it's all he does![246] Also, the IPs aren't in any of the Til ranges I've blocked over the years. I don't have much concept of who it might be, but I can always give 71.198.247.231 Darwinbish's "Anonymous coward" warning on their page and a sharp word on ANI. Bishonen | talk17:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
On an unrelated note: I was reading ARCA for my own reasons earlier today. I think you were in the right. You will understand why I don't chime in, though. Your fellow sysop and I had a run-in recently regarding a different matter, and I don't want anyone thinking I'm helping my "friends" against my "enemies". As ridiculous as it sounds, I'm finding increasingly that people seem all too ready to believe that kind of thing recently (the above IPs being only the most recent example). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I reinstated the topic ban indefinitely. Since that's the only subject of interest to that user it amounts to an indefinite block. Acroterion(talk)19:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI (and I don't think anything needs to be done about it), but after Hayek79 retired that account, he activated his alternative account User:L.R. Wormwood, and removed the note that it was an alternative account of Hayek79 from the user page. I had left him a comment on the L.R. Wormwood talk page to the effect that warnings, advice, sanctions etc. attach to the person doing the editing and not to the specific account, but his response was to ban me from his talk page (turnabout being fair play, I suppose) and delete the comment. When the L.R. Wormwood page was created (in the second edit) he admits to being 15, so I think we just have to wait and see if he grows into being a good editor or not. I'm only mentioning this to you so that you know that if problems develop with L.R. Wormwood (and I have no intention of following his edits), it's a continuation of the Hayek79 situation. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
He also didn't especially want the username "Hayek79" anymore, since he was 15 when he created the account. He would also appreciate the recognition that he has made useful contributions, and isn't just a problem-editor. Hayek79 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: The move of Hayek's user page to the L.R. Wormwood page showed up on my watchlist, so I sort of knew it, but I thought he'd changed his name. L.R. Wormwood was a pre-existing account? OK, fine. No, I won't dog his footsteps either. (After edit conflict.) Hayek79, I acknowledge that you have made useful contributions, but why exactly are you using the Hayek account now to post here on my page? Please don't use two accounts, as the page moves make that very confusing. I suggest you make up your mind which account you want to use. Bishonen | talk19:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
I'm using this account because I can't comment here using the new one. I assure you I will make an extra effort to be civil on talk pages in future. Hayek79 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see. That's fine, then. The problem of the confusing two accounts will go away as soon as the Wormwood account is autoconfirmed, I assume. Bishonen | talk19:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
L.R. Wormwood: I understand that you're trying to distance yourself a bit from the Hayek79 account, but I think it would be a good idea to redirect the user and talk pages of the Hayek79 account to the pages of the L.R. Wormwood account. I don't believe anything in policy requires this, but it would help to eliminate any confusion. See User:Before My Ken and User:Between My Ken for examples. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, Hayek79, you may want to do something different. The new account L.R. Wormwood only has a few edits. Isn't that a pity, since you take pride in your useful contributions? If you want your work credited to the new name, you can request a name change, instead of creating a new account and abandoning the Hayek one. See Wikipedia:Changing username for how to go about it. Bishonen | talk19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
I brought up some issues concerning the Steve Hassan BLP at the Talk page of that BLP. This includes self published single sourced entries in violation of Wikipedia and reliably sourced directly relevant criticism from a noted publisher ignored that is well within Wikipedia standards. Could you please explain why Wikipedia standards are not being consistently followed at this BLP. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, RexxS. Yes, the fact that I once stepped in and topic banned a user who was attacking you on your bio page, User:Rick Alan Ross, hardly makes me responsible for all bio pages, and I frankly have no particular interest in this one. I intervened at the page Rick Alan Ross purely because of my interest in making sure article subjects are treated decently when they attempt to comment on their Wikipedia biographies. (Compare the current brouhaha here on Jimbo Wales' talkpage, in case you're interested.) Anyway, I'm glad to see you're not editing Steven Hassan, since it looks like you have a COI — a personal interest — there, whether positive or negative, as I've already pointed out on your own page. Bishonen | talk19:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC).
A persistent IP, now at 4RR, is deleting English language content sourced from multiple scholarly sources, and replacing it with non-English content in Durga. Left a message on Talk:Durga page, and a caution on the IP's talk page. Did not help. Alleges scholars are wrong, wikipedia content policies are wrong (we should rely on the native version, rather than scholarly sources), etc. The IP provides no sources to back up their claims, adds "You seem to have a motivated ill intentions"! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Colourful character. It might be a good idea to give them a 3RR warning, Ms Sarah Welch. They're actually at 2RR, not 4RR — this was a change, not a revert, and do you see how they reverted themselves once? By mistake, possibly, but it still means they're only at 2RR. All the more need for the 3RR warning, actually. They haven't edited since your and Mr. Mjolnir's warnings, so I think I'll leave them alone for now. Not much point in me chiming in on their page, anyway, since we're all wrong! Please let me know if they revert again, or take it to WP:AN3 if I'm asleep (going to bed now). Or are there any little admin talkpage stalkers in a superior timezone out there? Because I agree the edits are disruptive, certainly. Bishonen | talk23:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC).
Greetings. This is a bit of a dicey question, but here goes. Do Admins have internal back-channel communications, not accessible to non-Admins? Tapered (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia e-mail is equally available to everybody, as is the Wikipedia IRC channel. Admins do have a dedicated admin IRC channel, but it doesn't seem to be much in use these days. That's my impression. I've looked in a few times, to see if there was anything going on, and it has echoed quite hollowly. It's my sense that e-mail is more used, and not more by admins than other experienced users, I think. Who can really tell, though? Bishonen | talk23:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC).
Jackpot question. I want to 'do' an RFC. The plan is to publicize it @ one Noticeboard and three Projects. Two of the projects' Talk pages are not terribly busy. Candidly, full disclosure, I believe that these projects would be more favorable to my position than the other project or noticeboard, though I'm not certain. To be as certain as possible that people from the projects read about the RfC, I'd like to ping the last 10 contributors to these talk pages—and, of course, follow suit by pinging the last 10 participants at the other talk page. Is this kosher? Since this is a specific, and possibly arcane, question, is there one expert Admin whose word/opinion who could answer this question authoritatively? Tapered (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Too arcane for me, yeah, Tapered. The admins who can probably answer hang out at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, and they seem to respond quite briskly to queries. That looks like a good place to ask. I see some non-admins replying there, too, but that should be OK. In case of doubt, you can always wait for more than one person to reply. To estimate who is more knowledgable/authoritative among the regulars, take a look at previous replies on the page. Bishonen | talk09:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC).
I handled OTRS ticket:2017031610022141 in which user Sbelknap confirmed his real-life identity. I think this is the first identity confirmation I've ever handled so please don't hesitate to let me know if you think I've missed something.--S Philbrick(Talk)22:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
In this case it wasn't hard, due to the email address, but if someone has a gmail or yahoo account, it can be a bit trickier. (Sorry, I should have mentioned that I unblocked.)--S Philbrick(Talk)23:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Please could you perform an IP range block on an IP user. They were initially blocked for disruptive editing [249], then they have repeated the same edits using these IPs in the same range [250], [251]. Silverfish (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure I can, @Silverfish: I see Oshwah has blocked a few single IPs, and I might as well do the range. However, I see the range I blocked before, on 26 February, was 2600:8800:4481:5b00::/64, while the one you're asking for now is 2600:8800:4481:C4B0::/64. Unfortunately that suggests it may be on a mobile connection, so I don't know how much good it'll do, but we can hope. Done, anyway; I've blocked for a month. It's not much good giving that character dainty little blocks. Bishonen | talk00:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC).
Grettings. A fellow user has suggested me to ask you for help with the FAC D.Gray-man. It has been copyedited by the guild as well as another user experienced in prose. Still, a reviewer found some issues with the writing. Could you give it a look? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Tintor2, I don't have much time to spare, and also I don't feel very confident around these subjects. Perhaps you thought I would be, because of my username? I'm afraid that's a bit misleading. Manga is unfamiliar ground to me. Bishonen | talk20:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC).
German? That's a new one, lol. No, it means "pretty boy" in Japanese — not sure why I used it, being neither pretty nor a boy — I just didn't think I'd be here long, I guess [all my socks burst out laughing at that], and Momus's eponymous song was running through my head at the time. A bishōnen is a stock character in manga and anime. Bishonen | talk12:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen. You indefinitely blocked Edson Frainlar back in February for for disruptive editing, etc. Edson Frainlar I was created a few days later and immediately began editing/creating articles related to the DMI Group of Institutions. I'm pretty sure this is a case of WP:QUACK, but not sure whether SPI or ANI is more appropriate for block evasion. Please advise on how to best proceed. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, you can just ask some sympathetic admin, for instance the one who blocked the original account. ;-) Both SPI and ANI seem like unnecessary bureaucracy in a case that's as clear as this. Thank you, Marchjuly, I took care of it, including deleting the article they created under the new name. Bishonen | talk01:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC).
I'm not sure this counts as anything really important, but it appears that a user has set up his own private TV universe, starring himself, using multiple accounts. These accounts user subpages seem to be:
Nice catch, Calton. I've deleted the sandboxes and blocked the accounts except Jjnguyen. I may be a big mean admin, but why can't they play on Facebook or something? Bishonen | talk16:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC).
Beyond My Ken
I thought I might take this to you before I do anything else, since you appear to be familiar with this user and their work. I'm not sure if I'm required to let the user concerned know that they are being discussed, but if I am, please ping them.
The issues on the Alternative for Germany page haven't gone away. There is a pattern whereby the user adds material to the ideology section of the infobox, such as "anti-feminism" or "climate change denial", piles up references, and then proceeds to edit war on the basis that those trying to remove their contributions are breaching NPOV. They have now accused three users, including myself, of being AfD supporters on this basis, most recently here:
Though you decided that I was at fault over the previous dispute, my argument throughout was that the sources did not adequately support the claim, and that the claim shouldn't feature in the infobox anyway. There is a reason why, to my knowledge, no other major political party, even comparable parties like UKIP, have things like "anti-feminism" and "climate change denial" listed in their infoboxes. My concerns mostly have to do with the advice here: MOS:INFOBOX, and consistency with similar pages. There are now three of us on the talk page who agree that the latest addition to the infobox shouldn't feature in the article. Do you think this is something that could go to arbitration?
You have mentioned before that this user does "NPOV work", but I would suggest that some of his recent comments would indicate partisan editing. I don't feel that the following is acceptable, for instance:
This in particular struck me:
"And if you don't want to be typed as an AfD supporter, then you should stop behavior which is supportive of creating a positive view of the party, such as removing ideology items from the infobox, and reporting the person you are in dispute with on the talk page to ANEW."
It's also very difficult to pick up on this sort of thing without reinforcing their perception that those on the talk page who disagree with the user about the validity of the references, and about infobox style, are not trying to portray the party positively.
Sorry, @L.R. Wormwood:, but I don't actually know the user well, nor the article. My block of you was purely behavioral. I just don't have time to take this on at this time. I don't know if you want to take it to ANI — I appreciate that you came to me to avoid the worst sides of ANI. Talkpage stalkers who are less ignorant than me, feel free to chat below, but I'm not going to say much at this time. (If things should get out of hand, I may invite User:Bishzilla.) And yes, I think a ping of @Beyond My Ken: is needed. Bishonen | talk17:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC).
Yes, I understand that most people wouldn't be interested in this sort of thing, or have the time to deal with it. It's just frustrating that there doesn't appear to be any means of resolving issues like this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you could help me with this - at what point can we say there is a consensus on a talk page? At the moment it's 4 to 1 (possibly 2) against inclusion on the talk page. Obviously we will have to wait a few more days for further comment by other users. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be in line with L.R. Wormwood's behavior as Hayek79 - expecting immediate results. In point of fact, I have not seen the article talk page, except for a quick look when I read this just now, since I saw Jytdog's reply to my suggestion of a compromise. So, L.R. Wormwood's bad faith assumption that I'm ignoring consensus is incorrect. At a quick look, it seems as if there is indeed a consensus at the moment not to include "Climate change denial" in the "Ideology", but it would be nice to be given the opportunity to respond before Wormwood jumps down my throat. Recall, please, that this is the editor who pledged to behave better on talk pages on this very page, and here he is, basically forum-shopping and admin-shopping before I, or any other editor who shares my opinion on this issue, to respond. There's no particular hurry, and this needs to wait until this evening, when I'm finished with work, and production meetings, and parent-teacher conferences, so I can take a look at it. In the meantime, L.R. Wormwood needs to keep his shirt on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Just a note that I found time to look at the page (between the production meeting and the parent-teacher conference, and I'm not seeing a consensus. I'm certainly seeing a plurality, but not a consensus. To formalize this dicey issue, I'll be opening an RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Gratuitous stalker comment: If the claims about the group's ideology are supported by RSes, then it really doesn't matter if articles about similar groups include them or not, what matters is that RSes attribute those views to the group. The complaint at the top really looks like a content dispute to me (and one over NPOV which are generally the worst ones in my experience).
I haven't done more than read the sources used for "anti-feminist", but I'm really not seeing the wiggle room to argue that attributing that to them is a POV problem: the sources are reliable, explicitly make the claim, and there's a number of them. I was also able to find out, for example, that "AfD antifeminismus" is the top suggested autocomplete result from google.de when typing "afd " (note the space).
Though mein Deutsch ist nicht so gut, diesen tagen, I know enough to know I mangled the grammar in that and enough to puzzle my way through statements like "Die AfD hält nichts vom Feminismus. Mit abgenutzten Vorurteilen machen sie ihre Positionierung deutlich." (MPants translation: "The AfD has nothing to do with feminism. They are obviously prejudiced.") It's also worth noting that the second suggested completion was "afd antisemitisch" which I don't think requires any translation.
This was a comment about BMK's behaviour in general, which I didn't want to waste people's time with on AN/I. I was not "admin-shopping". I didn't want to discuss the AfD dispute here. I don't believe that acccusations of bad faith on my part from BMK carry much authority given how BMK has addressed people who disagree with him on the AfD page (as the Diffs show above). Honestly, this is exhausting and I don't have time for it; I was just raising an alarm about minor behavioural issues which I have noticed.
As for the comments above, I'll have a more careful read later, but so far all the objections on the talk page have been concerned with whether things like "climate change denial" and "anti-feminism" should be listed as ideological commitments of the party in the infobox (I.e. Is climate change denial a political ideology?), and an emergent consensus on the talk page would suggest they are not. Obviously, these are things which could be mentioned in the main body of the article. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
There was also a secondary objection upheld by myself and one other (not concerned with the appropriateness of "anti-feminism" in the infobox) which you've mentioned, and I'll respond to that later. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
L.R. Wormwood: You need to read a little more closely than you are, because there is a distinct and important difference between saying that someone is a supporter of AfD -- which is something I have not said -- and saying that their behavior looks like it could be the behavior of an AfD supporter. It is the actions I questioned, and the possible meaning of the actions. Frankly, I still have some difficulty understanding why someone would edit an article in ways that prevent the subject's somewhat embarrassing viewpoints from being exposed if they weren't engaged in protecting the subject and skewing the article in their favor. Because this is an encyclopedia which is designed to provide information to the public, and not a sophomoric exercise in rhetoric, I have little or no patience with edits which are made not because they improve the encyclopedia, but because "it's the philosophy of the thing." Fie, I say, the philosophy of the thing be damned, edits should improve the encyclopedia and help present valid and supported facts to our readers. Period, full stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Insinuating that someone is an AfD supporter is not a cover for making a direct accusation. None of the contributions made so far could be reasonably interpreted as suggesting that there are any motives other than those provided on the talk page. Several people have tried to remove content you have added which they believe is inappropriate for the infobox of a political party, and you have returned with the assumption that people are trying to airbrush the page (and participated in an edit war claiming NPOV). I don't believe that discussing this further with you will be productive, so I won't. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I just want to say that I've been directly insulted (no aspersions, no hints, no commentary on my apparent POV, just directly insulted) at least three times since the new year and I have yet to ask an admin to do anything about it. This helps me to be a productive Wikipedian, because it means I waste less time arguing about arguing. Be like Captain Hammer Pants. Just let it go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.04:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I just noticed a pattern, that's all. I'll let it go and avoid them in future, since it would seem their style of editing brings out the worst in me.
Regarding User:MjolnirPants's comments, my complaint, and that of about half a dozen others now (I'm not tallying), is that the "ideology" field for political party infoboxes is used to provide a general overview of the main ideological commitments of the party, and usually lists no more than four or five items, often much fewer. See: Socialist Party (France), The Republicans (France), Democratic Party (United States), UKIP, New Zealand National Party. This makes the information more accessible, and reflects the guidelines in the MOS (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Often, the descriptors used are so general that there could be no cause for reasonable disagreement, and for this reason are often un-referenced: example: Labour Party (UK). There are also far too many references for each claim (partly because they are so needlessly contentious), when as another user has noted (Diff), one reference from a reliable source would be sufficient (but I was not allowed to remove the redundant references).
The problem with the inclusion of "anti-feminism" and "climate change denial" under the "ideology" field of the infobox is that these are not political ideologies (as the user has, in one case, already admitted on the talk page Diff). There is also the fact that there are now ten entries under the "ideology" field, which is far more than is necessary, and most of these are covered by each other (Right-wing populism could plausibly cover minority anti-feminist sentiments, or Christian right tendencies, for instance), and are therefore redundant.
Regarding the sources for anti-feminism specifically, two concern a Facebook campaign (one is an opinion article), and one concerns the views of a parliamentarian from the Baden-Württemberg landtag. Personally, I don't think this provides enough support for the claim that anti-feminism is a leading feature of the AfD agenda, and certainly not so great a feature that it deserves to appear under the "ideology" field. These tendencies could, of course, still be mentioned in the main body of the article. It is possible that we just disagree on this point. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the inclusion of "anti-feminism" and "climate change denial" under the "ideology" field of the infobox is that these are not political ideologies They meet the criteria in the article you just linked, so I'm not seeing anything here but a bald assertion coupled with contradictory evidence. Any ideology that concerns society is fully capable of being a political ideology. This includes climate change denialism, pro-science advocacy, feminism, anti-feminism and a rather staggering number of others. Note: this is content, not conduct and does not require administrative intervention.
as the user has, in one case, already admitted on the talk page Diff I'm afraid that diff demonstrates nothing of the sort. BMK's comments in that are simply drawing a distinction between the component plurals and the ultimate singular use of the word "ideology". Every mental faculty I have that concerns logic, human nature, language and communication tells me that is not in any way, an admission that such ideologies as are listed are not political in nature. Of course, BMK might come along and say "Sorry, you big handsome tooltrouser you, but I really did mean to admit that they aren't political ideologies," but I somehow doubt that will happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. The comment was concerned with the following assertion: "The list is not one which outlines multiple ideologies, it outlines the set of beliefs which is the party's ideology.", which as I have tried to demonstrate above is not the case (i.e. This is not how the field is used, as I attempt to show above, and in my response to the comment here: Diff).
Re this: "They meet the criteria in the article you just linked":
The phrase "certain ethical set of ideals [etc]" is important. Generally, I believe, a political ideology is understood as a set of views, dispositions, prejudices, and so forth, which form a body of ideas, loosely defined, which might be encompassed by a term or phrase (or held by a particular body of people [252] Cambridge English Dictionary). I consider a political ideology to be a set of ideas, therefore (this is the meaning adopted here, I believe: List of political ideologies). We might say that "neoliberalism", for instance, is an ideology. We wouldn't say (though you might) that structural adjustment is an ideology (though it might be ideological, informed by ideology, etc).
Therefore, when you say: "Any ideology that concerns society is fully capable of being a political ideology", this is not what the article I provide says, and I suspect this is just your view.
This is, I believe, what BMK means to say when he makes a distinction between "ideology" and "ideologies" (that is, he agrees with my position on the meaning of ideology in a political context above). When he says, "The list is not one which outlines multiple ideologies, it outlines the set of beliefs which is the party's ideology", he means the field is not supposed to merely list a group of political ideologies, i.e. national conservatism and so forth, but the component "beliefs" which constitute the party's ideology. This might include things like climate change denial, anti-feminism, and so on. This is how I interpreted his comment when I first read it, on re-reading it, I still believe I am correct, but I am willing to be corrected. This is not, however, as I have said, how the field is used. BMK's view is just a novel interpretation of what the field "ideology" might have been intended to imply.
Therefore, he is admitting that climate change denial is not a political ideology where he says: "So "Climate change denial" is not an ideology, it is part of the set of beliefs which make up the party's ideology", i.e. it is not in itself an ideology, but it is an element of the party ideology (and therefore ought to feature in the infobox which, it is alleged, is intended to provide a laundry list of links which describe the "set of beliefs which is the party's ideology"). I do not believe that he was merely making an obvious distinction between the form words take when used to refer to "component plurals", and when used in the singular, but you are welcome to your view. I would recommend you read the whole exchange for context.
The entire paragraph for reference:
"The infobox field says "Ideology", not "Ideologies". The list is not one which outlines multiple ideologies, it outlines the set of beliefs which is the party's ideology. So "Climate change denial" is not an ideology, it is part of the set of beliefs which make up the party's ideology."
Every mental faculty I have would also confirm that BMK is not making the admission that "such ideologies as are listed are not political in nature", but that would be an admission entirely different from the admission that they are not "political ideologies".
Now that I have clarified what I mean, I no longer believe that it would be fair to say that all I am contributing is "bald assertion coupled with contradictory evidence". It's also a little frustrating that you only responded to one paragraph (this is what got me into trouble over the last dispute), but I understand WP policy doesn't oblige users to respond to all points raised. I also realise that we are now discussing a content issue, but I am only responding to a content issue you raised when you responded to my comments concerning the dispute on the AfD talk page. I'm happy to continue this parsing elsewhere if User:Bishonen doesn't want it on their talk page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You've said you were here over behavioral problems, but you've yet to give any evidence of any behavioral problems, or even name what, specifically they are. In fact, every diff you've shown has been one which demonstrates some aspect of the content dispute. Now, I certainly could keep arguing about content with you, but I'm not going to, because this isn't the article talk page, but Bish's user talk page. I don't believe I'm buying your end of the argument at all, but again: that's beside the point. My advice to you, take it or leave it, is to attempt some dispute resolution steps. Try an RfC, or possibly mediation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.06:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
"you've yet to give any evidence of any behavioral problems": I provided evidence of behavioural problems in my initial post Diff, and you responded to this by saying that you have been directly insulted several times since the new year, and yet have let it go, with the expectation that I let BMK's insinuation that I'm an AfD supporter go.
I'm happy to provide more diffs to validate my case, but I'm not spending any time on this since I've said I won't pursue it. My complaints are a generally aggressive and unpleasant tone (here he calls me dysfunctional, for instance); and a frequent and fairly blatant failure to assume good faith:
Another user provides some more evidence of such behaviour (unpleasantness, bad faith, some other accusations) in a complaint they made against BMK's edit warring on WP:ANEWhere.
The issue has gone to RfC, and the survey is currently 8-2 in my favour. I doubt the two dissenters will back down, so it will likely be closed formally.
When you say: "I don't believe I'm buying your end of the argument at all", I'm not sure whether you're referring to my position on the behaviour dispute, the content dispute, or my previous comments about your interpretation of BMK's remarks on the talk page. If it's the former, I've provided you with some more diffs, which show some (blatant, and admitted) bad faith, and low-level incivility - nothing actionable, but I was hoping when I came here that someone who is familiar with the user might "have a word with them", so to speak.
If you disagree with me on content, you are welcome to believe that the sources demonstrate that AfD is an "anti-feminist" party, i.e., that "anti-feminism" is a significant part of their agenda, but I don't, and my reasons are all over the talk page. You may believe that opinion articles can be credible references for that sort of claim, but I don't, and most people I have encountered so far on WP agree. You may wish to adopt a very abstract interpretation of the term "political ideology", which is apparently that anything which "concerns society is fully capable of being a political ideology", but this is not how the term is used here or here, where it is used to refer to a set or body or system of ideas, preferences, notions, prejudices etc concerning the way society or government ought to be organised. This is supported by the Cambridge English Dictionary link which I supplied, and also here and here. This might refer either to the general ideological orientation of an individual, or group of people (not individual policy preferences like climate change denial, pro-life policies, etc, though they might be ideological positions), but will often also (and in this context does) refer to a particular set or system of ideas, such as the political ideologies listed here. This is how the term has been interpreted for every article for every major political party, as I have shown, where they list things like anarchism, or social democracy, or neoconservatism, and not things like pro-choice, small government, or climate change denial. I believe there is an obvious qualitative difference between these things. The latter might be associated with particular "political ideologies", they might be positions or preferences informed by the general ideological commitments of particular individuals, but I do not believe that any conventional understanding of the term could lend any support to their designation as "political ideologies". This term (in the English-speaking world at least, as far as I have encountered) has a specific meaning, which does not include any ideological commitment related to politics.
The same goes for my interpretation of BMK's comments. I cannot find any other reasonable interpretation of what he meant beyond what I laid out as clearly as I can yesterday. I don't see much room for your interpretation of him merely identifying and pointing out the distinction between "component plurals" and singular use given everything else contained in the paragraph, and given that he would not be contributing anything at all by simply pointing that out (what would be his point, if your reading is correct?)
I can't find any other way to express my thoughts more clearly. I am convinced that I am right (validated by the fact that all but the two original contributors agree with my position on the talk page RfC survey), and I hope this additional clarification has convinced you, but I can't be convinced otherwise without actual arguments being presented (which the dissenters on the talk page have failed to provide convincingly). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Greetings. I was looking through the 'R's @ Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians to compare listed editors with one I'm considering to add. If you click on the "count" link for User:Random Passer-by, some of the info at this next not-exactly-Wikipedia page appears to have been vandalized. A small thing, but still vandalism. Regards Tapered (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker/non-admin): You mean the weird numbers here? I'd guess it's a bug with X's Edit Counter tool. Unless I'm missing something, no one is maintaining that tool anymore or even replying to queries about it. RivertorchFIREWATER05:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Cyberpower678, that's good to know. [In a cackling, ancient voice:] I hope one of you young folks will keep an eye out for Random Passer-by when they turn up in 2099. Bishonen | talk16:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
Re this. I wound up semiprotecting this article. Let me know if you disagree. A semi is usually easier than a rangeblock! The guy himself could be notable, since he appears to be a full professor at the American University of Beirut. The article itself appears to be mostly copyvio, and I imagine people will get busy and trim it down soon, if it survives at all. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Good call, Ed. A rangeblock of an IPv6 /64 range (normally one person) is thankfully very easy too, but semi may well give better protection. Bishonen | talk19:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
"Nader El-Bizri" article
Dear Bishonen, what has happened over the past couple of days has been a misunderstanding that may have resulted from haste in editing that has been carried through with tags, and this seems to be harmful to the reputation of the actual person being covered by the entry "Nader El-Bizri". Please more care needs to be directed to this from you as professional editors and from your Wikipedia colleagues. I fully understood now that as a casual editor that I should not interfere with tags, but all along I wanted to bring the latest edits to the attention of your administrators just in case there was a case of vandalism or unfair editorial handling throughout, and for this purpose I used the noticeboards and miscellaneous queries pages on Wikipedia as a means of contacting the professional Wikipedia editors without knowing that this is not your protocol. There was a suggestion even made by one of the editors of deleting the whole "Nader El-Bizri" even though it is a page that has been on Wikipedia for several years and has multiple links within Wikipedia and to external references etc. Please look into it under your editorial care. Thanks 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:E5B3:EBD7:4E2F:D5 (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:E5B3:EBD7:4E2F:D5. Edit warring in particular is not our protocol, and we take a dim view of it. Because of your rather aggressive editing (repeatedly removing tags), the article has now been semiprotected by another administrator, per the section you see above. Semiprotection means IPs can't edit it at all. You can still request edits on Talk:Nader El-Bizri, though. Post the template {{Edit semi-protected}} (just copy that as it appears on my page) and write your request in the form "please change x to y", and give your reason. Bishonen | talk19:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
@Bish, our spanish writing editor is back, with choice personal attacks. This time on my talk page! For Round 1, see above.
Never crossed paths with this character in any article or article talk page, as much as I can remember. The IP was 85.84.184.165 harassing Maragm and you, now hopped to 85.84.113.133. Bbb23 has blocked the new one for 72 hours, which suffices. If persistent against Maragm or others in Latin America / Iberia-related articles, may need more Taichi. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah... perhaps we're giving the childishness too much attention. Let me know if I can interest you in a semi of your pages. (Wow, did you see MONGO's stormcloud?) Bishonen | talk21:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC).
Good idea, thanks. Lets semi it for 6 months, save Bbb23 some future effort.. who must be overloaded with work. I admire how much work Bbb23 does to keep sockpuppets and disrupters at bay. Scary stormcloud pic that is. MONGO... waiting for more nice pics! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
6 months? Well, if you're sure. I looked at the edits to your page in the past 6 months, and there was one reasonable IP, no more.[253] Perhaps you'd like to put a note on your page recommending non-autoconfirmed editors to take their concerns to article talkpages? Or something. Bishonen | talk22:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC).
Indeed. It is the third time you protected my talk page for another 6 months. Thanks. May be next time, we go much longer. Look at the MONGO pic quickly before it changes. Two pretty pink beaked pelicans. Good photography, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you also look at the recent behaviour by Endercase's mentor User:David Tornheim? I requested that he talk to Endercase about his recent behaviour, and was met with "Why should I? I'm not an admin."[254] I am not asking for sanctions against David, but I am increasingly wondering about his capacity to act as a mentor when he essentially admitted upfront that he would act more as an enabler than a teacher (User:JzG and I both expressed concerns during the ANI thread, as well as on JzG's talk page). Since the close was an involved, non-admin close that didn't explicitly mention any binding agreement on who should do the mentoring, what the mentoring should cover, and how long it should last, I'm wondering what can be done about it. I'm not that familiar with mentoring (I just thought that if I offered advice on how to edit, everything would be okay, but it's been causing me a lot more stress than that, especially since the ANI thread was closed), so I'm not sure.
After Endercase attacked me (despite my being his other "mentor"), I initially told him off, but also requested David back me up.[255]
After he refused, I went to User:MjolnirPants and mentioned David's shirking, and have as a result recently been met with a string of "warnings" for "lying" about him and not pinging him, even though he made it quite clear he didn't want anything to do with it.[256][257]
Hijiri88 is misrepresenting things in number of forums and it is a huge waste of my time having to correct the falsehoods he is telling. What he did do was ask me to tell some other editor to "knock it off" [258] and I that's why I said no. He previously told me I needed to investigate the interaction of him and some other editor [259]. Neither of these requests is appropriate and I said no. The full discussion is here. He is also making unfounded accusations and talking behind my back [260], saying that I have failed to continue mentoring Endercase. That is not true. If he had provided me the diff where Endercase attacked him, I would have said something, but he didn't. (When I did find out about it, I did say something [261]). The request that I investigate Endercase followed his claims I was supposed to shoe off the other two other editors who disagreed with him. He provided no diff. I'm supposed to go looking for it? It just gets tiresome. I am happy to continue helping Endercase, but I am tired of Hijiri88 bugging me like this and causing me unnecessary drama. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Struck per agreement to drop it. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I have a pair of trouts tied together at the tail like nunchaku and I'm about to start spazzing out like a Bruce Lee movie on VHS with the tracking off and fast forward locked on. Just because you two have been here longer doesn't mean my advice (repeated ad nauseum at this point) is only good for new editors: stop stirring up shit if you don't want to get any on you. Also, I think there's some advice above that works, too: Let's all be like the Dude and just, like, abide, man. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.02:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Yes. Definitely. Going forward, I would appreciate if you only focus on Endercase rather than asking me to investigate or admonish other users. If Endercase behaves poorly, I am more likely to follow up if you provide a diff or page section, and if the request is on his talk (or mentoring) page, or tag me at the place is going on. Okay? I will try to follow up if it is a concise request of that form, okay? --David Tornheim (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
David Tornheim, Hijiri was obviously very hurt and needed support against his unruly mentee, and I wish you had provided it. That said, though, I think you've been doing a very good job advising Endercase. (Not that I've followed you around, but from everything I've come across.) I was originally with JzG and Softlavender, who expressed doubts about your suitability to be a mentor, but I've had to change my mind. You tell him good stuff, and you don't give up. Perhaps, indeed, you're so tenacious that you're wearing yourself out, because it's quite hard to get Endercase to listen, as you may have found. Mentoring does tend to be an ungrateful task. @Endercase:, please give some thought to not wearing your mentors out — I think Hijiri has already, understandably, given up, and you're making David work very hard without much reward. If both your mentors withdraw, you're unlikely to find new ones. Bishonen | talk11:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
Hi, User:ToshibaCK6R4. Sorry, I don't understand. The user talkpage you link me to hasn't even been created yet — there's nothing on it. Did I try to get in contact with you under another username or an IP? I talk to quite a few new users, so I'm not sure who you are. Is it possibly about this? Bishonen | talk13:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
Sorry to ask for another favour...
Could you ask Vfrickey (talk·contribs) to drop the stick as well? He just filled his talk page with a long rant against me (or, rather, the strawman he set up in my place), after everyone else had apparently agreed to put this whole incident behind us.
I really, really wanna just forget about this whole incident, but the guy now has a threat to bring me to ANI (or, rather, a statement of regret that he didn't support that IP troll's ridiculous boomerang proposal) on his talk page, and specifically set it to remain there for 90 days.
Well, technically it's not a statement of regret that he didn't support the bogus trolling boomerang proposal; it's a statement of regret that no such proposal was made, which is arguably even worse (proposing a boomerang against the OP of an ANI discussion one hasn't even read/understood is inherently worse, right?) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Just let it go. The other editor stated their opinion—some of it good and some not so. Let them have the last word. I tried communicating at User talk:Endercase a couple of times (most recently to comment on Bishonen's "please try to read policies for their spirit") but received an amazing lack of engagement. I could have persisted but the Internet is a big place and it is not possible to make everyone exactly as we would like them to be. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a bit much on their part to talk about committing the error of letting other people use their page as a soapbox. A user talkpage isn't supposed to be anybody's soapbox, and I've told them so. But, Hijiri 88, I agree you should let these things go. You'll feel better. Sticks and stones, you know. What does it matter what they regret? Bishonen | talk05:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC).
Yeah, you're both right. I actually knew you were both right before you even said that (I've been desperately trying to drop this whole messmsince Saturday). I was just worried that he'd actually make good on his ANI threat. But a few hours to settle down has reminded me that no one would take such an ANI discussion seriously, so there's really nothing for me to be worried about at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to clear the record, nowhere did I threaten to take anything to AN/I in my discussion. I mentioned the issue of other editors being taken to AN/I of a conflation of legitimate disruptive activity and the political affiliation of the sites they were advocating to be cited (in what I agree was conduct requiring a hearing at AN/I, but which ought to have been discussed without use of emotionally loaded terms like "right-wing fake-news" sites which seem to make the issue the editor's politics, when the real issue should be the editor's actions which violate our policies). Hijiri 88 just accused me of serious misconduct without any proof. Please explain the rules about that to him. Thank you. loupgarous (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
What rules are those? Threatening to take people to ANI, which I agree you didn't do, wouldn't be serious misconduct by a long chalk. BTW do you see how much more agreeable it is to have your post left on the page, and responded to? I admit I was tempted to remove it. Bishonen | talk22:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC).
Bishonen, thank you for your restraint. I actually did take your advice to heart and am in the process of moving that entire block of text to my user page as you suggested. Thank you for stating the facts courteously, educating me and allowing me to correct my own errors. And MjolnirPants, thanks for the calming Disney clip. I'm delighted to let this go, now that my concerns were addressed. loupgarous (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Thanks for handling a difficult and emotionally fraught situation in an equable manner. I appreciate your use of the situation to teach proper use of the user talk page and not to punish me by merely deleting the text involved with a brusque message. Good adminning! loupgarous (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Cunard. What concerned me was that the RS attention seemed so old. 2005 was a century ago in IT company years, and three of the national media mentions that you found, The Times, BBC News, and The Guardian were from 2004-2005. The exception was The Telegraph, from 2010. But that 2010 mention was fairly fleeting, and didn't really speak to notability: more that they had bank problems like everybody else. Even 2010 was a long time ago in the volatile world of IT businesses, and I had to wonder if, and why, E3 Media hadn't had any more recent media attention. In particular, coverage from before the 2007-2008 financial crisis doesn't say much about notability/viablity now. There are more recent local mentions, or so I suppose, because I couldn't read your 2014 link to the Bristol Post. It merely invited me to sign in.
The National Trust's "50 Things To Do Before You’re 11 ¾" campaign, launched in 2012, may be more worthy of its own article, but I remain unconvinced that E3 Media's part in it was essential. On a quick read of the links you provided for it, I don't see E3 Media mentioned, except in Design Week, which is indeed a full-out good source for E3 Media (now apparently called "e3". Bah!).
Greetings, mighty Bishonen (or is it 'zilla who's in office today?). I blocked Justcallmesam a few days ago for repeated disruptive editing. The main account has not edited since then, but another editor raised a concern on their talk page that they have been using IP addresses in a certain range to make the same disruptive edits [262]. Would you mind taking a look? Might a rangeblock be appropriate? I feel a little conflicted about this, as they clearly have the potential to make constructive edits, but (as teenagers are wont to do) went off the rails a little after repeatedly being told to use sources. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Vanamonde, there's not enough information from @Apokryltaros:. 113.88... plus one IP isn't enough to deduce a useful range. At least I think 113.88... by itself would give a really big range — I don't know how to work with it, and X's range contributions can't help. My understanding of IP ranges is something of a thin varnish, you know. (Ping @RexxS and Darwinfish:) I tried looking at the histories of the articles that 113.88.81.28 has edited, but there were no others in the same range there, certainly not recently. Show me a few more IPs and I can do it. A brief rangeblock might be appropriate. Bishonen | talk09:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC).
Ah well, thanks anyhow. If Apokryltaros can give you more information, great, otherwise we can let this go, I guess. I'm not active in the topic, so I'm not aware of where else they've been messing around. Vanamonde (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I've looked at both of the /16 ranges here and here. Rather surprisingly, he appears to be the only anon IP using both ranges for all of 2017 and going back into 2016 with a duration of several months. Please review to see if you concur. Under normal circumstances, those ranges would be too big to block but I don't see any collateral damage. If going with a hardblock on those ranges, I would want a checkuser to evaluate for possible collateral damage...but blocking all anon IPs on those ranges looks good to me. — Berean Hunter(talk)16:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all very much. So that would be 113.88.0.0/16 and 183.16.0.0/16? Please confirm, Berean Hunter and/or RexxS, because I'm never sure I understand the system. Why am I an admin and not you lot? Do I dare to eat a peach? Yes, OK, I suppose I do. I've blocked both those ranges for a week: short rangeblocks, in consideration of the fact that this is a knowledgeable user who might become a useful contributor, per Vanamonde. Shall I wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled? Bishonen | talk17:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC).
Yes, Chère: 113.88.0.0/16 is all 65,000 IPs from 113.88.0.0 to 113.88.255.255. Similarly for 183.16.0.0/16. You're an admin because you're trusted by the community and I'm not. Berean Hunter is also trusted and just needs to ask for the tools back. While we're waiting for him to do that, some other admin (hint) ought to grant him rollback, autoreviewer, etc. so that he can still do some of the jobs he's well qualified for. The peach issue is settled, good. As for wearing trousers rolled up, I'd advise against that for reasons related to she-who-should-not-be-named. --RexxS (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll probably get around to it eventually but need to conduct due diligence and catch up on policy and guideline changes, pertinent arb decisions/sanctions and the back stories on some situations. The Admin Newsletter is certainly helpful for this year to date. I just wish that it existed for the months that I missed in 2016. I've also been poking around at the phabricator looking at what's going on there...like this which could have come in handy in this situation.Looks like Kaldari has been working on this quite a bit, a big thank you and just showing an example of the tool's usefulness.
Vanamonde, Justcallmesam evaded your block specifically with the last three edits here, just in case you have the need for that evidence. If you can get him to log back into his account, you may want to be specific with him because his account hasn't been warned for block evasion (his IP's were) and he has the look of avoiding scrutiny. — Berean Hunter(talk)20:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.
Technical news
After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
The post you made on my talk page, I'm not sure what you mean. As I said on the discussion page, I'm not a racist but the description of the institute is dishonest and the continued use of the term "white-supremacist" is being argued by people who are using ad hominem attacks and are getting overly emotional about the subject. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the truth. NPI does not describe itself as whit-supremacist and has disputed the use of that term to describe their organization. Again, I'm not a white-supremacist or white-nationalist or anything like that but we have to confine ourselves to the facts.NerdNinja9 (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Read the comment, from start to finish without skipping any part of it. If you are unsure about the meaning of some part of it, then click on the blue words within that sentence and read the page it brings you to. If you are still unsure, you may ask here or at my talk page and one of us will explain it to you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, MjolnirPants, you're absolutely right: reading the alert through and clicking on the links is the thing. Hi, NerdNinja9, nice to see you on my page. The discretionary sanctions alert I posted means that there have been many problems and conflicts on American political articles, and therefore the Arbitration committee has authorized administrators to use their own discretion (that's why it's called "discretionary sanctions") in sanctioning editors of these articles who edit unhelpfully. For instance, an administrator can give an editor a topic ban from some or all American political articles. A topic ban would mean the editor wouldn't be allowed to edit those pages. Of course they would be warned first. Note that the alert doesn't mean you have been editing unhelpfully. By giving you the alert, I basically wanted you to be aware that these articles are controversial, and that you need to study our policies and listen to advice from experienced editors. I'm sorry the wording of the alert is so bureaucratic, but I do need to post it exactly as-is, in order for it to "count" as an alert. Compare [264]. As for "we have to confine ourselves to the facts", organizations don't get to self-describe in Wikipedia articles; we go by what reliable sources say about them. Bishonen | talk20:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC).
I know you logged your addition of 1RR in the 2017 log (and I mentioned that in my note). But I think it makes sense to mention in the 2016 log that I later revoked the restriction. It might mislead somebody if I just left my 2016 note without comment. If we're not supposed to, I invoke the classic sense of IAR: not letting "supposed to" prevent me from improving the encyclopedia. If it's the mention in the 2016 log of what you replaced them with that you don't like, feel free to remove that bit. Bishonen | talk15:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC).
Bah, I like to step like Bishzilla. Superclerk, you know![265] (Well, she thinks she is. And it's a fact that her fixes on arbitration pages have never been reverted. A little clerk came here about it once, but left in discomfiture, or fear.) Bishonen | talk15:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC).
Kara
I was just going to ask you for advice. I have reverted the edits of editor Kakan88 at Jasmine Kara. She claimed to be Jasmine Kara, I then contacted Jasmine Kara on her social media and she confirmed that it is the singer that contacted me here. I am just trying to decide what to do, she wants to make some quite extensive edits to her own article, but I am not sure if is in the best interest to have singers editing their own articles. She does not seem to grasp how to edit either.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear. Thank you, BabbaQ. I've written to her. Nobody should edit their own bio. She needs to suggest edits on talk, which will also take care of the technical problems. It's best practice to keep it on article talk, but if Swedish is better for her, I suppose she can talk to you on your own page. I'm glad to see she seems quite happy to ask for help — I hope that keeps up, and that you have time to help her. Bishonen | talk10:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC).
Wikipedia Deleted Page Grazitti Interactive
Hi Bishonen, you deleted page Grazitti Interactive recently. But during first discussion there was not clearer consensus. And after that also I was working on making improvements to make the information more notable. The issue was with the Partnerships & Sponsorships section which I was willing to remove or edit. Also there were few reference links like Insidesales which seems to be fine for notability point of view. There are only handful companies makes to this list which is notable reference. Can you please guide me to proceed further since this page was not created for marketing purpose. .Henrysteven (talk) 11:39, 04 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Henry. When I closed the discussion as "delete", I took into account that the article had already been speedy deleted once, by Peridon, per the deletion criteria WP:A7 (No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) and WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). You then asked Peridon what specifically was wrong with the article and he explained, and also restored it to your userspace so you could work on it. That conversation is here. All you did, as far as I can see, was remove references that Peridon had told you didn't show notability, and modify one of the existing references. But the important thing that Peridon advised you to do was add references to reliable sources that did show notability. Read his response again, and you'll see. Apparently you weren't able to find any such references. Nevertheless you moved the article back to article space from your userspace. It wasn't really improved at all, and so it got nominated for deletion. If you look at this page, you can see a log of the admin actions for the article.
It also concerns me that you have not declared any connection with the company, and when you were asked in a very straightforward way in the AfD if you had such a connection,[266] you ignored the question, even though you continued to post in the AfD. Frankly, evasiveness on that point does not make a good impression. The impression I take away is that you're here merely to promote the company, which is not what Wikipedia is for. As I said in my closing comment. Theoretically, I should tell you you can request deletion review at WP:DRV, but in my opinion you'd be wasting your time. Bishonen | talk11:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC).
Hi, I am getting in touch with you about this revert. I believe that the material I am trying to add to the James Randi article is relevant, so I have explained my reasons here. If you still think that the material is not relevant, would you mind explaining there why you think so? Thanks in advance! --a3nm (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
a3nm, I'm pretty sure this has been discussed a number of times on talk, and I thought we had consensus in some RfC that Peña's crimes are not relevant in a biography of Randi, because, well, they're not the same person, and I'm not aware of any credible accusations that Randi was involved in the fraud. (Knowing about it and refraining from telling the authorities is not involvement.) If there are such credible (well-sourced) accusations, you should perhaps mention them in the article. Unfortunately I don't have the time, or the will, to dig through the archives. Pinging @Johnuniq:, who I can see (still on the talkpage) commenting on the matter in 2011. Bishonen | talk14:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC).
Bishonen, thanks for your quick answer. I can't see a link to any such RfC on the talk page. I have pointed out on the talk page reasons why I think the crime is relevant to an article about James Randi. (I'd also like to point out that there has been additional coverage of this event in reliable sources since 2011.) Thanks again, --a3nm (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Raju
Hi, you semi-protected Raju for 12 months on 3 April 2015. The year is up and, right on cue, the same problems have begun. Repeated attempts by anons to sanitise sourced content/add unsourced. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Sitush, actually, it expired a year ago, 3 April 2016, and I see there were some of the usual kind of anons in the intervening year. But it looks worse now. I'm sure all the IPv6 edits (2405:205 etc) are from one person, but unfortunately they have access to more than the usual /64 range that I'm comfortable blocking. (Or should I eat that peach, RexxS?) Anyway. Semi'd for... hey, let's try for two years. Done. [A little scared.] Bishzilla did that! Bishonen | talk15:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC).
If the number of IPs vandalising the article produces too big a peach to eat, then semi-protection is an alternative diet that works. If somebody feels that having IPs editing the article would be a net positive, they can always make the case for the semi to be removed here or at RPP. Bon appétit! --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Contested move
I know that this move is contentious because (a) the mover is a POV pusher and (b) they've got no support in talk page discussions about it. However, there is something I can't put my finger on that makes me think it is going to need an admin to sort it out. The move caused a page deletion. My brain is not in gear. Is yours? - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, got it. It is the subtle spelling difference between Chalukya dynasty and Chaulukya dynasty that confused me, which someone does actually mention as a potential cause of confusion on the talk page. However, as the original target was in fact the common name and had consensus, I'll see if I can revert the move. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems you could. I'll put Chaulukya dynasty on my watchlist, when I'm done cursing the fact (?) that Chalukya and Chaulukya are different dynasties, with different Wikipedia pages. I mean, FGS. Bishonen | talk13:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC).
Respected administrators
The article heading Solanki was changed to Chaulukya by an NRI , who has very less information about this topic . It was a bold move made by the user to change a very old article heading . I'm a new user and I'm continuesly bullied and suppressedby old administrators , even I'm in fault as I'm not able sources and resources but I do provide links in talk pages of the article . Right now I'm learning how to add references and sources ; as a beginner I have contributed alot to Wikipedia , I have provided nothing useless or nuisance ; now coming back to the move topic . Administrators can you please search for Chaulukya on Google , the result displayed will be did you mean Chalukya and then please search for Solanki Rajput who will get a thousand of results in both Hindi and English ; which relates to information on the Wikipedia article Chaulukya . I'm myself a Solanki Rajput , hailing descendency from Tribhuvanpal Solanki (ruler of Gujarat) and I can not see someone pampering with my dynasties history , the word Chaulukya came into existence when the a branch of Chalukyas moved to Gujarat and because of problems in pronunciation in Gujarat the word Chalukya - Chaulukya - Saulukiya - Saulkik - Solanki . It is a soft topic for a sensitive community , I hope you know what happened to <name removed> as a Wikipedia user I don't want any uprising against Wikipedia or any of it's user . I'm providing alot of valid and correct links by experienced and knowledgeable personalities RexxS , Sitush; please go through them
http://www.indianrajputs.com/history/solanki.phphttp://www.rajputana.in/solanki-rajput-history/http://mudiraja.weebly.com/chalukya--solanki--dynasty.htmlhttp://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=solankihttps://www.jatland.com/home/Solankihttp://www.indianrajputs.com/view/lunawadaKunal Singh Solanki Nathawat (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Kunal Singh Solanki Nathawat. Many people edit Wikipedia by smartphone, and that doesn't absolve them from providing sources. If you can't add a source, I'm afraid I have to say: don't enter the information. Since anybody can edit Wikipedia, we depend completely on sources, so that the reader can check the basis for the information for themselves. We go by reliable sources and not by people's ancestry. Since you are now learning how to add references, that problem will hopefully soon be solved. No, I don't know what happened to the person you name (I have removed the name in your post, as it shouldn't be on a public page), and therefore I don't know what you mean by mentioning it. Is it a threat? Bishonen | talk08:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC).
No no not a threat and can you please give the link through which I can learn easily to add references and please do share the links with other Administrators to draw their attention to this topic Kunal Singh Solanki Nathawat (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Bish, the person Kumal mentioned has a Wikipedia article and the incident in question was widely reported in India and elsewhere. Basically, a film director whose latest project upset the sensitivities of a Rajput caste association with regard to a historical depiction and led to an alleged assault. The usual caste nonsense that makes little sense/seems out of proportion to outsiders, rather like the Last Temptation of Christ film furore made little sense/seemed out of proportion to outsiders.
Kumal, WP:Citing sources is probably a good place to start. I'm happy to help you with formatting citations etc with two provisos. Firstly, I'm not going to be around as much over the next few days. Second, you need to understand our guidance regarding reliable sources. Those that you mention above are not reliable - they're open wikis, caste-affiliated websites etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
By the way, Kumal, it really doesn't matter who creates, edits and moves an article provided that they follow our policies and heed our guidelines. Non-Resident Indian (NRI) contributors are just as capable of complying as anyone else. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for offering to assist the new user, Sitush. Kunal, Sitush is the best helper you can get, both with regard to formatting references and assessing the reliability of sources in this field. Bishonen | talk16:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC).
No, sir. You have already written to Sitush about it, and he has replied now. He's a specialist in the subject; I'm not, I'm just an admin. There's no point in asking me to put a map into an article. To discuss such things with Sitush is appropriate, but I see he has reasons to decline: the map is original research. Bishonen | talk18:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC).
RE:Last Warning ( Article title CHATTAR)
Dear Bishonen Thank you for kind reply. I am completely baffled by the amount of bullying I am witnessing by my respected colleague Mr Sitush. Now as his old mate, you have come to justify his unethical act of vandalism in the name of Raj Era where you are brushing each and every author under the same carpet just because they were born in colonial times. I have been very respectful and expressed my concern with Mr Sitush but seems like I have pressed the wrong nerve. I am not going to be intimidated by this bullying and Mr Sitush has been issued the warning already if he tries to disfigure the article with authentic references. I would request you to kindly defuse this rather unpleasant situation by constructive talk rather than arguing like school going kids. Whole of the Indian sub continent's history is largely based on the information provided by many of the authors of colonial times which is still considered valid and widely read. It is true that that some of the Raj Era authors were influenced by the political factors of that time but it doesn not mean that they disfugred the historical quotes or references they took from the scared books like Vedas. I once again request you to refrain from such unethical tactics and just beacuse Mr Sitush is an old editor doesn not necessarily mean that he is always right.
Regards
Rajarule
Since you have replied to me both on your own page and here, we may as well keep discussion on yours. I'll reply there. Bishonen | talk20:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC).
Mazhabi Sikh
Rangreta mazhabi (talk·contribs) is not getting the message regarding their attempts to sanitise Mazhabi Sikh. They've had several warnings and a sanctions alert but I'm wondering if this is yet another example of someone not realising they have a talk page. Would a short block perhaps catch their attention? - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Surely he wrote on your page in response to your post on his the day before. I therefore don't believe he hasn't seen his warnings, so I'd rather topic ban him. No doubt blocks will follow, as he seems kind of ... oblivious to what he's told. Bishonen | talk16:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC).
Done. Hey, RexxS! Look at me using the simplified topic ban notice for the first time, haha! You too, Doug Weller. This is exactly the kind of new user who'd have very little chance of understanding the standard template. I suspect he'll have some difficulty with the simple version as well, since he doesn't seem to take warnings on board very well. Bishonen | talk16:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC).
Oh, gee, that makes me wish I hadn't said I'd topic ban him. An indefinite block would be a lot simpler, and it's obviously what it'll come to anyway, sooner rather than later. Bishonen | talk17:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC).
Is this 4th or technically 3rd? The editor is removing the source, alleging that externally published encyclopedias by reputable publishing houses (such as Brill, Oxford, McFarland, Macmillan etc) cannot be used, or unacceptable in wikipedia (see this). The editor seems to have a strange understanding of WP:PSTS. I have cautioned this editor about edit warring before the last revert, fwiw. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
This article may need a watch and temporary semi-protection, as the traditional new year is next week and traffic usually spikes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
This has been discussed in the article talk page. I guess there's a bit of problem with the interpretation of WP:PSTS. I have faced this before so what I understand is wikipedia prefers secondary sources over tertiary ones. In the said article, there is a dispute where Ms Welch tried to verify her claim citing an encyclopedia while I tried to verify mine with a secondary published book. Akib.H (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Your secondary source does not verify, nor does it contradict the RS I added! I can certainly add secondary sources, but when disputes arise over sources we rely on tertiary RS. Any way, the real issue here is the 4RR, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Ms Sarah Welch, that's four reverts by Akib.H, while you yourself have made three reverts. This means A has violated the three-revert rule while you have not. (Unless one or both of you have made more reverts after 17:39; those edits are harder for me to judge, with all the new material added.) Akib, did you not understand MSW's warning about edit warring on your page, which she posted after your third revert, with a link to the WP:EDITWAR policy, which describes the three-revert rule? Theoretically, I could block you for 24 hours or so, but I won't, for several reasons: you are both discussing on the talkpage and making progress; your block log is clean after several years of editing Wikipedia; and also, MSW, your warning could have been clearer. It's better to post the templated 3RR warning, {{subst:uw-3rr}}, which emphasizes the bright-line three-revert rule. Expecting the user to look up 3RR in WP:EDITWAR and to understand how important it is, is not the best way of doing it. Akib, I don't want to block you under these circumstances, but I have posted a templated warning on your page; please read it carefully. Bishonen | talk22:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC).
Ms Sarah Welch, an alternative to that would be to enable Twinkle in your preferences. You'll find it under Gadgets. Put a tick against Twinkle under Browsing and you're done. Twinkle will then remember warnings and other common templates for you: say you choose "warn" on a user's page. Twinkle will then throw up a menu where you can select the 3RR warning. I found it hard to do without once I'd tried it. It will also, for instance, offer you a simple way to put an article on AfD, something that's horrendously awkward to do without Twinkle. Bishonen | talk04:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC).
First try, failed!!! I see the MONGO scary clouds with a thunder bolt. The edit box looks the same. I will now go back and read the help guide. Hmmmm, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: I don't pretend to know about the finer points of what you two are edit warring over but what caught my attention was the blatant canvassing by Akib.H. That earned them a pretty clear and final warning. As for the content dispute, you may want to ask for a WP:3O. --NeilNtalk to me04:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I have permission on my userpage for anyone to edit it. Thank you for the concern though. I would like to know how they knew to use that tag though. But, it is correct. Endercase (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Testing twinkle
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write.
@Bish: I like this one... "Using improper humor in articles"!!
— are there any mechanisms to report a user globally across all Wikipedias? I have before seen notices indicating that a user is blocked globally. Can you tell me a bit more about that? There is a new user editing at the moment in four or five languages who has been blocked in at least six Wikipedias under various alias/ socks/ etc..
— How do we deal with people writing about themselves and using using own publications as sources in articles? For example, user:FicticiousGuy is in actual fact Dr Mortified Professor, who has published a few papers here and there, but who is actually completely unknown. So user:FicticiousGuy creeates the page Mortified Professor and looks for articles where he can include his publications among the sources, sometimes without even adding any information, just using what is already there and adding his work as an additional source. Oh, almost forgot — as far as outing is concerned, all the information coonecting the user with the real life person is here on Wikipedia, is drips and drabs here and there, I merely connected the dots. Any guidance will be most helpful. Thanks, regards
I've wondered myself about reporting a user globally, Rui Gabriel Correia. I've had very good success with ANI, though it's probably not technically the right place. Not Jimbo's <imprecation removed> page, young Aunva6! (You want Darwinbish to come visit?) I don't think it would come to the notice of the right people as effectively, and also I'm ideologically against it. But for the rest, Aunva gives you good advice. I'll add two things: it sounds highly likely that the article Mortified Professor needs to be deleted, maybe speedied. And secondly, you absolutely can't be too careful about outing, and I'm glad you were so discreet above. It might be a good idea to e-mail me about how the identification is already on Wikipedia, before you say anything specific in public. Then you can blame me if it goes south. Bishonen | talk09:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC).
Right, that sounds likely. Thanks, little Aunva6, Darwinbish forgives you. (Of course Gabriel wouldn't want to use the OTRS address, but there are several other ways of contacting stewards listed on the page you link to.) Gabriel, have you thought about e-mailing me the details of your friend Fictitious Guy? It's up to you, of course. But the rules about public outing are tighter than you (or common sense) might think, and I'm not sure how much difference it makes if he has outed himself first. It depends on how he has done it. Bishonen | talk07:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen. This week is a bit tight for me, but I will certainly get back to you on this. So for now, thank you, you and Aunva6. PS: Tried to make sense of "Darwinbish", but without much luck, I see it is part of a whole clade of sea creatures, but cannot fathom how it would evolve here. Very niche. ;-) Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Any time, Gabriel. Ha, a clade, that's exactly right! They just... evolved, compare list on my page. The bitey Darwinbish strikes fear into those that know her, and so I mentioned her to Aunva, an old friend to the Bishonen conglomerate. I didn't mean to create a mystery for you, sorry about that! Bishonen | talk08:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC).
Halp
I came across a report at AIV, and based on this filter log I indeffed the user as NOTHERE. I also revdel'd one revision on the talk page they were targeting. I'm not sure what else to do, though. The allegations being made by the blocked user are serious; and at the same time, I'd say this qualifies as harassment, and should be reported someplace...and if that were not enough, both accounts seem to be SPAs, one of whom has made a handful of edits to pages related to the hadith, the other being a throwaway account, created, apparently, for harassment. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe the word you want is "Hjälp", Vanamonde. A reverted Muslim, eh? How appropriate. Though he doesn't seem to have been reverted much, probably not enough (just an impression I get). I think you did absolutely right to indef, and it might be a good idea to write to ArbCom about the other one. You know, to their mailing list, arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Bishonen | talk12:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC).
Yes, quite, I do know that. It's the reverted who may need arbcom attention, because of the accusations made against him. Bishonen | talk13:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC).
Yes indeed I thought that's what you meant, just the joke made me hesitate :) I've sent the email, I guess I can cast a somebody-else's-problem field over it now. Vanamonde (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm completely uninvolved in the Palestine-Israel area, or I wouldn't have commented in the uninvolved admin section. I don't know how you can confirm it, though, other than by searching for me in the histories of PIA articles and their talkpages, and failing to find me. Or asking somebody knowledgeable. You're grasping at straws. Bishonen | talk16:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC).
Needs a watch. Puthandu is the traditional new year festival this week in South India + Sri Lanka (and Tamil people elsewhere). The article traffic is starting to spike and will likely increase substantially over the next few days. The editor is removing scholarly secondary sources, adding unsourced + personal OR on primary. Now edit warring. No progress on the talk page. Already twinkled 3RR caution to the editor's page.
Very impressed by your twinkling, Ms Sarah Welch. I've blocked the user for 24 hours for edit warring and blatantly ignoring WPs rules, but it's a problem there's nobody discussing on talk, nor editing the article, except the two of you. I suggest you request a third opinion. I've never done that, but it looks easy enough, see the linked page. Obviously you can't revert again in any case, so I'm afraid it'll be the Wrong Version for some time; I hope not disastrously so. Bishonen | talk22:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC).
Oh, groan, how boring. If PM was entirely new, I'd duckblock, but as it is, I've asked a CU. As you know, Dipendra has form for socking. And now I'm going to bed. Bishonen | talk22:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC).
My little Ponyo! That woke me up from the vasty deeps of sleep. Delightful to see you pop up, just as I was getting sadly used to you being awfully busy. I'll block that character. Considering past form, do you think a month would be right, with a threat of indef next time? Bishonen | talk23:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC).
Sleepy hugs! Ms Sarah Welch, I think events have moved past the 3O idea — don't bother. I've reverted Dipendra's latest edit to the article, I don't think we should leave it as a monument to them. Bishonen | talk23:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello my friend. I am being spanked on an article's talk page for accusing a vandal of lying in his edit summary. The entire affair is 'Backlash' by a red user named Betty Logan, who is a man named Mike something or other. I don't mind being spanked, however, how is he getting away with doing it on the article's talk page. Will you take a look please? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:IMDb just scroll down to "Disruptive Behavior". Thanks in advance. P.S. I love your 'pond' photo.Pocketthis (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Whoa, @Pocketthis:, you need to dial it back, right away. I don't have time to try to comment at the talk page, but my first impressions are:
You've seriously misinterpreted the history of Betty's user page; the odd page moves were imperfect attempts to lessen the result of harassment of Betty Logan by other users, not accidental hints that those other names are hers.
Something is weird with the flow of that talk page thread; no time to figure it out, but I think people have either been posting without signing, or posting in the middle of other people's comments, or not indenting, or all of the above, or something. I can't follow it well.
From an outside uninvolved perspective, it appears that you're acting like when Betty made a mistake it's because she's evil, and when you made a mistake, it's Betty's fault for expecting you to be perfect. At least some portion of this is due to you accidentally adding some stray text you didn't know you added to her comments.
There's really no call for comments like "you must be drunk or crazy". In bold, no less.
It's just a sentence in an article.
I know you don't want my input, you want Bish's so I'll shut up now, but... if you don't dial it back quickly, I fear blocks or ANI threads or other drastic things will happen to you before Bish even has a chance to reply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, @Pocketthis:, one more thing; I think some of the confusion was your most recent post today was put in the middle of Betty Logan's post from several days ago, confusing the timeline. I've actually removed that last post, which is not really my right, but I honestly think it is for your benefit and Betty's. I won't fight you if you want to re-add it, but please consider whether that is a good idea first. As I said above, you've misunderstood what's going on with Betty's page, and these accusations of her being a disgraced admin or something are way, way off the mark. Better that it is removed before it is responded to, I think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I saw it again this morning, and thought it would be gone by now, and it wasn't, and I wanted to have a defense. Also,I agree it's a mess, and from nothing. Thanks for commenting. Here is the simple sequence of events: I inadvertently may have removed a citation in an edit to add a sentence to an existing paragraph. Then I added a citation for my sentence. He not She (Betty Logan), made a similar error or purposeful deceptive edit, saying that I removed a citation. However, he also removed my entire new sentence to boot. He lied in the edit summary. I busted him on it, and he went berserk in the article's talk page to embarrass me. This misunderstanding doesn't belong on an articles talk page. It belongs on "my talk Page", or he can open an admin complaint. That is not what article talk pages are there for. (behavior problems). As far as the Drunk or Crazy thing, that was after he accused me of removing his text in the talk article. I haven't figured that error out yet, but yes, it pissed me off. I'd rather be banned for 3 months, rather than have this baloney on an article's talk page. If every complaint about a user was placed on article talk pages......well just ponder that for a moment! Thanks for your valuable time. Pocketthis (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Be a Tricoteuse. Like them keep knitting, while the world is busy executing each other!
Floquenbeam is absolutely right. Some highly respectable admins have red userpages, and your suspicions are inappropriate. I'm going to comment on the talkpage and close those threads. Or, no — I was going to, but I see Floquenbeam has already complicated matters by removing some of it. I give up. Or, I'll look some more, but I expect other people will keep adding/removing stuff and I'll be too slow to do anything. I'm not really fitted for this environment. Bishonen | talk16:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC).
Sorry Bish, although I only removed the last comment, never responded to by anyone (otherwise I'd have had to hat it, or something). So I don't think anyone will add/remove anymore. At least I won't. Closing the threads seems like a good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
No no, I just get stressed. Maybe I should camp at a knitting site instead. I wrote to Betty, too, to explain the hatting wasn't a reflexion on her. That was just one post you removed? That really goes to show how confusing it is to post in the middle of someone else's post, divorcing their sig from some of their text. Please try to never do that again, Pocketthis. It increases my stress level. :-( (Look at the edit notice, everybody: it's the lilypads. :-)) Bishonen | talk17:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC).
@Bishonen Sorry to get you involved with this mess. You know how much I admire you, and you were my last hope at settling this. I NEVER would have called any user a liar in my edit summary, but what happened was, when I clicked on the RED NAME, I saw all the warnings, and was sure this was a vandal. When it comes to vandals I am extremely literally honest in my summaries. I never bothered to look at her talk page until I was being spanked in the article talk page. That's how this evolved. I will admit that I was to blame because I was negligent in not checking her talk page. Three things in my defense: ALL legitimate users should be registered, so their names are blue, and this would never have happened. 2: She should have gone to my talk page with her complaints about my accusation, NOT the article talk page. 3:She DID lie in her edit summary, and she never got spanked for it. Does she work for the TRUMP campaign?, or is she an admin, and everyone knows it but me?? I'll be more gentle in my summaries in the future, and I'm really sorry that I got you into this mess. Fun being an admin....ain't it? I won't annoy you with garbage like this issue ever again. Your friend: Pocketthis (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh.....one comedic comment: Don't you find it a bit ironic that she called me "over reactive Pocketthis" in her response to you on her talk page, when all I did was mention that she fibbed in her edit summary, and she puts a 20,0000 character complaint, with 3 inch spaces to take up as much room as she could in the article's talk page? This is not normal conduct, but no one is talking about it, and I'm the over-reactive one. :-) Happy Easter Pocketthis (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Don't worry, Pocket. You lost it rather on that occasion, but we're all human. And all the great images you've been donating to Wikipedia give you some leeway in my mind. If you want to apologize to someone, it shouldn't be to me but Betty Logan. (If you edit conflict me one more time, I give up trying to reply.) Bishonen | talk23:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC).
Familiar situation, isn't it? Blocked for a week, article reverted. How about Yoyoyoi7? Do you think that's a separate person? I've given them the alert, just in case. Bishonen | talk18:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC).
Far too familiar. Like Groundhog Day. I wondered about Yoyoyoi7 but they could just be jumping on the bandwagon - we will soon find out. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Well; my reading of that would be that, whilst robust, TParis was engaging hypothetically. He did qualify (effectively retract) the remark (which you do not quote) with a more 'generous answer' regarding the 'case by case' nature of your original request. That whole page was a powder keg in any case. IMHO, of course. Cheers, — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis12:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Another (talk page stalker) I'd suggest you put yourself in 'Shonen's position: she's not obliged to be the civility police for the entire project, although she does an excellent job of sometimes taking hard decisions for the benefit of the encyclopedia – and there's little doubt in my mind that Coffee needed a short, sharp shock to make him re-evaluate how he has been interacting with other editors lately. So I would ask you to try to objectively work out what outcome you're looking for in asking that question of 'Shonen. There's no chance that TParis is going to be blocked for that comment, principally because it's stale (10 April). Is there any other reason for your question? Examine your feelings. If you're looking for sympathy for hurt feelings, then you have my sympathy: no editor should have to endure such a comment, but you already know that when debates become inflamed, shit happens. If you're looking for advice on what you should do because of the offence, my advice is to explain to TParis, in a dignified manner, that you were offended by what he said to you, and express the hope that it was merely a momentary aberration that you would prefer not to be repeated. Perhaps 'Shonen will be able to offer you further advice. --RexxS (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to fill Bish's page with ramblings about why my comment is justified, but anyone is welcome to ask me on my talk page.--v/r - TP12:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, TParis and others above. Yes, Marvellous Spider-Man, I wish you had engaged TParis on his page, before or (preferably) instead of coming to me. As RexxS says, I'm not the project civility police. It would have been better to do that while the matter was fresh, but you can do it now; he'll still answer. Also, I suppose the only reason TParis saw your mention of him here (in practice, your request that I sanction him) was that Fortuna pinged him, not you. That's bad wikimanners on your part. Speaking of manners, I hereby declare that any user is welcome to tell me to go fuck myself. I hope people won't do it for sport, but if the expression is used to express annoyance/upset, I'm fine with it. And what Fortuna said about the remark being hypothetical, and reading differently if the whole sentence is quoted. Bishonen | talk22:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC).
You're pretty bold to ping her in such a context, Meters! Mind you, it'll hardly matter. Bishzilla has a very fine vocabulary, but she only knows words suitable for a lady's ears. She wouldn't even understand the phrase, it'd pass her harmlessly by. Just see how polite her language remains in a passionate encounter with a fellow monster here. Bishonen | talk22:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC).
RexxS "a short, sharp shock" does not equate to a one-week purely-punitive block. I'm still waiting to understand how this post-event, punitive actio equates to Bishonen's knowledge of an admin calling me a prick and telling me "fuck you, asshole" with no action whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
How my action equates to the Floquenbeam thing, The Rambling Man? I don't understand you. Why would one thing equate to the other? I blocked Coffee because I don't like to see admins get away with stuff that regular users wouldn't — it happens regularly, and I feel strongly about it — and also because he didn't seem to be taking on any criticism. I'm thinking not least of his defensive/aggressive reply to Yngvadottir, who had addressed him nicely.[269] As for your "purely-punitive" and "post-event" (!) crap, are you saying you want me to place blocks pre-event because post-event blocks are punitive?
As for me not sanctioning Floquenbeam, I had seen links to this ("prick", from January) and this comment by Floquenbeam on his page.[270] I then wrote in the same thread that I didn't regard "fuck you" as a personal attack, giving a rather pedantic rationale.[271] My post apparently angered you, and you asked me about it on your page.[272] From one of your questions, I learned for the first time that Floquenbeam hadn't just said "fuck you", but in an edit summary had also said "fuck you, asshole". Note, not in an edit summary to one of the diffs that I had read, as provided by El C on Floquenbeam's page, but I assume in another. This was by now three days after the deed, and many, many users had reproached Floquenbeam in the meantime, including a number of admins, but none had blocked him. Apparently you expected me to do it. Or at least to go back to his page and add my pebble to the cairn of admonishments on his page, after that length of time? I don't know why I was singled out, unless you thought I'd be the natural admin for it because I had obliged you by unprotecting your talkpage a couple of days earlier. Not that I expected or expect gratitude, that wasn't what I did it for, but I was actually being threatened with desysopping over it at ARCA while you posted this crap. Shrug. You're boring, really boring. You bore me.
PS. Oho, going to save my post, I realised I'd missed the disparagement in your edit summary: "I've asked this admin a question three or so days ago, no response, failing per ADMINACCT, like Kww and Mike V before". My god, "boring" may be too weak a word. Tedious. Wearisome. Yes, you've been asking me / pinging me for two days (actually) on your own page before coming here. Thank you for finally coming to my page like other people. Pinging — if it works, which can't be assumed — informs people they've been mentioned. It's not a way to summon them. It doesn't "equate to" ringing for a domestic. I don't like your page; I've been avoiding it for years, ever since you decorated the top of it with an attack on me which you refused to remove. My avoidance has broken down a couple of times; per above, I went there in March to remove Sandstein's protection of the page while you were blocked (which I don't regret), and I let myself be drawn by your imperious ping summons a couple of days later, which I do regret. Please come here if you have any questions about my admin actions. Don't try to beckon or whistle for me from your own page or anywhere else. I won't respond. Bishonen | talk09:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC).
Ironic Drmies, since you are the only "Paki" accuser in the whole discussion. You toss around phrases like "Paki", you clearly have not a single idea what impact that has. So I'd suggest you do some research and do better, particularly as you are purported to be an "admin". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't you have better things to do than stalking this talk page? Also, I don't know what you are trying to say since you didn't punctuate--but you really don't have to explain. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, you're welcome here if you want to question any of my admin actions. But my page is not your playground for needling or sneering at other people. Please stay away if that's all you've got. Bishonen | talk20:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC).
Drmies accused me of being racist, and continues to do so (that's a lie and a sick and hideous, and fundamental one, without any foundation - you're the only one here using the term "Paki", you have a serious problem to address), and you Bishonen, made an ignorant and punitive block which was completely unnecessary (which you yourself admitted to when allowing Geni who had actually taken the time to read about the case to take the punitive block from a week to 48 hours, and even Geni admitted that was only because they didn't want to "disrupt" civility policy enforcement, nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the situation). But since you're both in the club, you're right that this is a waste of my time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
TRM, if you continue to let fly with your blanket and specific hatred of admins, which you have been warned off of many times, including several times by me (a non-admin), you are going to find yourself blocked for violating your editing restrictions. Likewise, if you continue to claim and proclaim that Drmies accused and accuses you of being a racist, the same thing will happen. Softlavender (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
If you're failing to see the racist claims by Drmies, that's your problem. There's not hatred of admins, just those admins who act as admins superieur, who hold trump cards and actively discourage editors from Wikpiedia by their over-arching actions, which seem to trump regular admin discussions. None of this violates my editing restrictions, this is a discussion about the behaviour of a few individuals, none of it is insulting or belittling. It's fact. But thanks for reinforcing that I'm now even prohibited from protesting against such behaviour, even when it's directed specifically at me. That's the rub, the restrictions, as you interpret, now prevent me from even defending myself from being called a racist. And you're defending and perpetuating that. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, you are importing another of your multitudinous grudges here, one that has nothing to do with me, with Coffee, with Floquenbeam, or even with Drmies's brief comment on my reply to you, and now you're steaming ahead despite my request not to do that — it's like you fucking didn't hear what I said. I don't want you spreading your unrelated venom here on this page. I'll be removing your posts if there's more of it. I hope that's clear. Bishonen | talk21:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC).
Question- you mentioned pedantry, so maybe this is the height of it- but how can ADMINACCT be relevant to an inaction? The difference between 'Admin, why did you take *this* action'; or 'Admin, why *didn't* you take this action'- surely there's a hell of a lot actions you don't take and so can't be responsible for?! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis10:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Block MONGO for being a menace
MONGO see lightning! I likely need to be blocked...it would be bigger than a Jimbo block to have the mighty Bishonen block the mean and nasty MONGO!--MONGO16:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Certainly if these actions and inactions were as hideous as portrayed, the Lady would wade in and coordinate some sort of Easter eggroll for everyone. Or maybe Easter egg drop soup. --DHeyward (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Bishonen will hardly dare block the great MONGO who can command the lightning! You should have requested it while Bishzilla had the admin tools. Man, that was centuries ago. Maybe I should let her have another run. Thanks to all for the Easter delicacy suggestions. The Lady might faint with horror, but I'm deeply interested, for my part. Bishonen | talk18:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC).
On the other hand, I believe the Lady has been known to imperiously ring for a domestic. If I am not terribly, tragically, unforgivably mistaken. Softlavender (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Abortion topic ban
Bish, on January 6, 2017, you topic-banned Ontario for one year "from all pages connected with abortion, broadly construed". How broadly construed? For example, you have a politician article that has the politician's political views including his view on abortion. Ontario edits the article but not the part of the article about abortion. Is that a violation? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
A topic ban is a ban from just that - the topic. We say "the pages" because that's the most easily identifiable and to scratch off the list of acceptable editing right away. But, topic bans are construed broadly, as stated, which includes the topic of abortion anytime anywhere on any article.--v/r - TP16:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
An example that relates to editors TBANned from that topic is the various articles that relate to US politics in which many voters and some WP editors clearly have a POV and a mission to promote the POV on articles relating to candidates who are pro-life and support pro-life judicial appointments. Even where these editors are careful not to edit content explicitly on the topic from which they're banned, they are tenacious editors in support of such politicians and candidates. Any thoughts on this would be helpful. SPECIFICOtalk17:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
There's one such editor in particular to whom I think it should apply and I have told that editor my belief, and others have seen this but I have not done anything to request enforcement. The editor is disruptive but in a charming and civil manner, and so nobody is likely to pursue the matter. Same with some gun control POV editors and politics, probably. SPECIFICOtalk17:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Bbb23, my answer is that it's a very complicated area and it relies entirely on your judgement and how well you can defend your position. Sorry, buddy, wish I could give you more. But it comes down to this: if they touch the abortion section, that's an outright violation. Now, if they are editing around abortion but you sense an underlying motivation, then the question is whether you can convince the community that you're not seeing things. That said, if they are editing completely away from the topic of abortion, such as updating the subject's year of birth for example, then I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time worrying about it. It all comes down to what your gut tells you and whether or not you can spell it out in writing in a persuasive way.--v/r - TP18:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it depends on how much emphasis there is on the topic of abortion in the article. Say it's a BLP about a politician who is well-known, or even mostly known, for their views on abortion. A topic banned editor has no business editing that article or its talkpage at all, however harmlessly or marginally. Here's an example of the opposite: if I remember rightly, people have attempted to get an editor who is topic banned from abortion to be forbidden from editing pages about Donald Trump (which that editor does quite diligently) because of Trump's views on abortion. I have always refused to entertain that, of course as long as the editor in question doesn't touch anything abortion-related in the Trump articles. Anti-abortion is only a small part of Trump's panoply of views. @Bbb23:, I guess the specific case you were asking about is moot, as your editor has been indeffed for abusing multiple accounts while I feasted on Easter eggs. Bishonen | talk22:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
But isn't it the case that in contemporary USA politics, where candidate Trump released a list of pro-life Supreme Court justice candidates early in the campaign, that many voters and editors view abortion, gun rights and a few other issues as their prime motivation for supporting or opposing a candidate? When TBANned editors behave disruptively on politics articles, I think it would be appropriate to examine whether they've been banned for similar misconduct on articles more narrowly defined that led to their TBAN. SPECIFICOtalk22:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Behaving disruptively on politics articles is a separate matter. Pages like Donald Trump are under several sets of discretionary sanctions, so people who behave disruptively on them can be sanctioned (blocked or topic banned) without any need to invoke an abortion topic ban that they have. Come on, SPECIFICO. I think I know who you're talking about, and if I'm right, the disruption which caused their topic ban, while certainly massive, is far in the past. I just don't agree that it need be invoked re Trump. I don't know if abortion, gun rights, etc are the prime motivations in supporting a candidate. I'm not even American. But you're not going to talk me down on this; take it to AE for more eyes if you like. Bishonen | talk23:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC).
I think I said above that I don't think that anything needs to be done in that case, but of course the same could be said for any tban. If there's disruption it can always be dealt with, so there must be some useful function for TBANs that reduce the amount of monitoring or enforcement needed where there's repeated disruption. Frankly, I it feels to me as if you've inferred some sort of confrontation or challenge from my words here, when what I had intended to do was raise a general issue of policy or enforcement. SPECIFICOtalk00:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Email
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.
I'm saddened by our guy's decision but understand it. I am somewhat burdened by my share of guilt over the misunderstandings that arose between him and I regarding certain topics and how they were to be handled in a certain BLP, but I always felt a level of trust and respect, even though we disagreed. Thank you for bringing forward the information as you did at his TP, otherwise I may not have known. Is such information made public on WP via a specific channel, or is it always kept low key? Atsme📞📧20:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Most probably the resignation of JzG from adminning and your comment about same on the user talk page. @Atsme: it was requested on WP:BN, which doesn’t strike me as especially “low key”; some go straight to the stewards on Meta to resign, or just use e-mail, leaving no trace at all on this wiki.—Odysseus147900:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Or indeed they just silently become inactive. That may be the most dignified way but it's a bit boring, isn't it? Give your frinds a chance to throw a party when you leave, say I. Don't just slink out — ragequit, slam the door behind you! I think announcing it on WP:BN is pretty common; certainly I've caught many resignations, as well as, more cheeringly, many returns, by the simple expedient of watching BN. I miss Laser Brain as well as JzG. Bishonen | talk00:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC).
I've "quit" Wikipedia at least three times, just by stopping editing. I got as far as posting a "semi-retired" note when I realized I hadn't edited for two months. Everyone should take sabbaticals from this place. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)06:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[273] Could you talk to Endercase again? He's still refusing to take advice from me, MP, and several others. I'm not sure exactly what can be done at this point (I know what I can do, but that wouldn't solve the problem), but ... well, do you happen to have his talk page watchlisted? I don't like editors whom I was mentoring until they started to attack me telling me that I am "hounding" them by continuing to offer them advice despite continuously getting ignored. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
You'd better stop offering it, Hijiri 88. The close of the ANI thread was unfortunately vague (hello @MjolnirPants:) but the time to complain about that would have been right afterwards. I'm not going to sanction or advise Endercase for rejecting mentoring. But I'll take a look tomorrow (it's late here) to see if he's being generally disruptive, and if he is I'll intervene. I won't do it merely because he edits Wikipedia space too much, though. I could advise him not to do that, but having seen how resistant he is to advice, I won't. Really, you'd better let it go, for your own sake. The law of diminishing returns has set in, and it's time to drop it and avoid burnout. Bishonen | talk23:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC).
I already had essentially dropped it, but real life being as it is (started working at a new school in a new city, but I wanna make a good impression so the work is more draining than it had been) I haven't been able to do a lot of content work over the last week. I was reading the drahma boards while being careful not to directly post there all that much, and I noticed something that I really didn't think I should still be noticing. (My involvement in both the present problem and this one were explicitly the result of me reading ANI and choosing to respond to the issue somewhere other than ANI). But you're right nonetheless. Maybe I just need a wikibreak. And I was this close to pushing my rate of mainspace edits back over 50% of my total edit count before things started getting busy IRL. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I closed the thread because I did not believe, for one second, that a new editor with the threat of sanctions hanging over their head would be amenable to mentoring. Especially when the volunteer mentor was having their own suitability questioned in that thread, while demonstrably doing as good job of it as anyone could expect. I apologize if my closing remarks were the cause of any disruption, and am open to revisiting them if necessary, or interpreting them in whatever means best facilitates handling things. I'll hang a trout near the top of my talk page, to save anyone who feels the need to use it from having to bring their own.
For what it's worth, my advice to all parties (@Bishonen, Hijiri88, Endercase, and David Tornheim:) is that it's time to cut the umbilical and let Endercase manage his own affair without input from any mentors. David, Hijiri and I have tried to help, and there's only so much we can do. If Endercase cannot avoid being a disruption, then Endercase can be made to no longer be a disruption by the admins as needed. If Endercase can contribute, then it will be to their benefit to do so without being constantly questioned. I'm not proposing IBANS or anything, I'm just saying that we seem to have reached the end of what we are able to teach Endercase, without much caring whether it's our fault or his. So lets just set him free and watch him soar. Endercase, please, for the love of God/Allah/Buddha/Krishna/Gaia/Reason soar, and don't splat. I know you can be a good Wikipedian if you just decide to. This isn't a place that needs to be or even should be fair and equitable: this is a place that needs to be an encyclopedia. Make it that, first and foremost, and you'll be great. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.01:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: First of all will you still help out with the LEDE? That is a major update, I will likely be able to handle any resistance myself but knowing that you are in the background would be helpful. Additionally, with "an encyclopedia" is the focus adding reliable information or making sure that all reliable POV have been weighed. I am currently under the impression that all (simi-major) publicly verifiable views (within reason) should be at least mentioned, this is unlike a traditional encyclopedia but an admirable goal none the less.
As to going splat, I will try to avoid that. My POV in and of itself is sometimes seen as disruptive and this does make it difficult to express my ideas (even while cited). I do seem to polarize many users, thank you for helping show me how to avoid that (I still need improvement). Hopefully, I will not hang myself (as Hijiri88 thinks I do constantly). I respect the temporal investment that you David and even Hijiri have made in me and hopefully over time I will do all of you (even Hijiri) proud. Endercase (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Bishonen: I have read their are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia. I understand that it is generally accepted that editing article space is the easiest way to get started but I don't often see places that I know I can reliably contribute there while also maintaining mental engagement. I enjoy working with other users and not nearly as much alone (see how I have left my edits to Salix nigra far on the backburner (see user space link on talk page)). It could also be that my user patterns were disrupted because I was thrown into the politics of Wikipedia at an early user stage (the citation of Breitbart on Stealth Banning) and encountered the (the most regular users/also Rouge Admin). I have also grated against a few users in such a way that simply drives them mad (Hijiri88 is a good example), I'm really not sure what to do in such cases as I have few-to-none positive interactions with these users and I am not sure what they want (even when I do what they explicitly ask for they still find fault). I am not well equipped to handle users that are combative and threatening, I respond very poorly to those situations (I escalate, and call bluffs; among other things). But, at least it is a problem that I am aware of as such I should be able to fix it over time (given that I am not banned first).
I would also like to thank you for your offer to review my edits, I do respect your opinion on what is disruptive and what isn't. I have seen your alt-accounts and given your sense of humor you definitely pass my turing test. Endercase (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Endercase I suggest you remove "encountered the cabal (the most regular users/also Rouge Admin)". I'm not sure what you intended to mean by it, but it might not be heard the correct way. Suggesting any editor is part of any cabal is in my opinion an ad hominem. Please strike ASAP. Please don't even try to explain and defend what you intended by it--just get rid of it, please. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: Fixed . Some editors have a userbox that says they are part of the/a cabal though. And there are several essays that go back and forth about the issue. The one I like the most is Wikipedia:List of cabals, as it is closer to a list of groups that have been identified as or self-identify as a cabal (humorously). [274] is also a good read. There are many more articles both locally and from outside Wikipedia if you would like to know more. Endercase (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Ender, I see you acknowledging that the writing about "the cabal" is humorous, but I also see you implicitly assuming that there is a cabal. There is no cabal. Occam's razor and some honest thought is all it takes to show just how silly the notion of the cabal here really is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: Isn't every uncaught sock/meat-puppet "army" a cabal? A Cabal is just an apparent group of people united together for some purpose. One could argue that all users that follow or enforce policy as though it were a religion based in text and not in consensus are part of one cabal, the users who spit on AGF another, and so on. There is far more than one cabal editing here on Wikipedia, various groups of paid editors (some of which are Admin, per the coverage on the issue), propaganda pushers of various nations, corporate entities trying to improve their image, and that sort of thing. The Burger King cabal for example was recently kicked out (and sent an open letter), several of the groups on that homourous list are less homourous than we would like. I agree that there is not one supreme cabal that controls Wikipedia. But, there are always groups that try. Wikipedia is to some users a giant game of capture the flag or king of the hill. I do not support that gamified philosophy but some of them openly admit to that and are not banned. Should I bring such users to your attention in the future? There is no one Cabal, there are many cabal. Endercase (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I support Bishonen's advice for moving forward. I do not believe Endercase has given up mentoring, but simply wants distance from Hijiri88. I think both need to take it easy and not get so fired up when they feel the other has insulted them. Sometimes (or often), it is better to ignore an insult or perceived slight than escalate confront or respond to it. Both parties appear to be guilty of escalating and increasing conflict. Sometimes responding "dignifies" the petty insult (or "low blow") and may reveal one's over-sensitivity in an unflattering way. Walking away and ignoring is often a sign of maturity, emotional strength and self-control. Summary: space between them will help As for mentoring from me and MjolnirPants, I think Endercase is entirely open to continuing that. He seems to resent being labelled as being under a sentence of "mandatory mentoring". I was at the AN/I, and I do not believe the mentoring was "mandatory". It was an "agreement" that Endercase freely chose, not a sentence or an order of a judge under protest. Calling it "mandatory" leaves the wrong impression, so I understand why he might resent the term. I have enjoyed working with Endercase since that AN/I, and especially in working with him and MjolnirPants at the page Endercase initiated to resolve conflicts over the lede of Argument from authority and welcoming everyone to join him in that work. I was very proud that he set that page up and the three of us collaborated to produce a new lede all three of us like. Endercase put notice of our intention to replace the current lede with the new lede. I feel based on that work he is learning how to be a good editor, work with others and follow our rules. Endercase has drawn some negative attention regarding his unusual beliefs about socks and willingness to have a "conversation" with them, but I don't think it is disruptive, just a little misguided. As long as he does not interfere with admin enforcement against socking, I think his behavior is relatively harmless. If is not, I think an explanation of how his behavior is interfering and making the job of catching socks harder is in order. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I like MjolnirPants's idea. I don't agree with most of David's second paragraph, as the mentoring was presented as an alternative to a block and/or TBAN, and the majority of users opposing those proposals did so explicitly based on the assumption that mentoring would solve the problem, i.e., that Endercase would be bound to listen to the advice he is given. (I pointed all this out during the ANI discussion, by the way.) Say what you want about labels, but that's how it happened. But I just don't care anymore. Endercase should be allowed to swim or sink by himself. Anyone still planning on offering him advice should bear in mind that their advice should be for the good of the encyclopedia, not just to protect Endercase: if Endercase is doing something wrong, he should be told that he is doing something wrong. But I'm done. Remember that I'm a regular contributor to ANI (how I came across the current flareup) and a slightly less regular contributor to RSN. I will likely not touch this issue again unless it shows up in one of those places. Fare ye well! :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Endercase I think both of you should walk away from that discussion as recommended above and not talk to each other there. Besides, it appears to be a lost cause. Also, you should have pinged Hijiri88 above. I have taken care of that for you. But please take note of that mistake.--David Tornheim (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Could both of you please leave me alone and stop pinging me? I've made it clear that I am no longer interested in being involved with the Endercase issue. Endercase's bogus accusations against me on Herostratus's talk page should just be ignored. I found the Herostratus canvassing discussion on ANI; I thought at first that the major issue I needed to address was Endercase's personal attack against Beeblebrox; I then started commenting on the RM itself, which had nothing in-and-of-itself to do with Endercase; Endercase then followed me to Herostratus's talk page (where I had left a reminder that Herostratus is not allowed "self-revert" even though I had speedied the redundant redirects he had created; I didn't mention Endercase) and started trying to make everything about him (IMO you are only here because I stated my opinion in the AN/I and you love to disagree with me. You do show up at a large portion of my edits, often with ad hominem attacks.[275]). Endercase's insistence on placing the blame on others for his own shortcomings (he followed me, and then accused me of hounding) is something that may need to be dealt with, but I would rather not be the one doing it. So stop dragging me back into this. I just don't care. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: If you had clicked the link I left you would have known that the user in question specifically requested that I not ping them ever again. Additionally, they often show up in discussions I am already a part of invariably less than 24hrs after my first post and then accuse me of following them around. In fact, their constant accusations (seen since our first encounter) are getting quite bothersome. As I explained in the linked conversation I don't follow their edits. However, whenever we are both involved in the same discussion they consistently accuse me of anything they think might apply to either get me punished or otherwise devalue my remarks. Rarely if ever do they even address my arguments directly. This is IMO battlefield behavior, at the very least it isn't consensus building behavior.
Nor did I make any personal attacks on Beeblebrox as they claim (without a diff) here. Obviously, Beeblebrox was not even offended to point where they thought they should even address the issue on my talk page. As such this is a non-issue.
Why is this type of harassment allowed without even a single remark by a respected user to inform them of their consistent violations of Civil? After a failed attempt to get me banned at AN/I the user seems desperate to get someone (anyone) else to try again to punish me. I would love to avoid these negative interactions with this user but they keep showing up in locations where I am already involved (I can provide diffs and links to that effect), with the attitude they have demonstrated here. Endercase (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Urgent mail
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.
I was legitimately serious about the question I asked on the other user's talk page. I edited the UNC once, and it was mainly grammar errors. I am sorry. I also edited one of the notable alumni. It says that he was a soccerquarterback. I don't understand what that is. I have learned not to edit grammar now, unless it's urgent.
Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This was the edit in question, and I've already linked you to it once, on ElKevbo's page. Did you click on it the first time I gave it? Have you clicked on it now? Do you have difficulty reading diffs? Your changes are picked out in red in the diff. Your edit didn't fix errors, it introduced errors. Also, as for removing the "soccer" part of "soccer quarterback", please don't remove things just because you don't know what they are. I suggest you either leave them alone or look them up. See the article Soccer. Bishonen | talk15:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) The rest of the edit was bad indeed, but the OP was quite right about the quarterback; soccer was substituted for football in May 2015, a bit of “subtle“ vandalism that had gone unnoticed until then—now fixed by Roxy the dog. (You certainly won’t find anything about quarterbacks at Soccer, and Kansas City Chiefs can refer only to American football.)—Odysseus147919:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Sports is generally considered vulgar in genteel society. After all, it has balls, shuttlecocks, and players wearing uniforms that accentuate both.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Rather than using a vulture...may I suggest a reddish egret? It's much prettier, and while it's a bird of prey, it's precision is impeccable and it doesn't prey on what's already dead. Atsme📞📧18:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Reddish egret hunting in the mangroves
Very handsome, Atsme, you're a great photographer. You know what? Have you uploaded any herons? Herons are kind of my favorites. Look at this guy/gal. But I also see a lot of fine images in your gallery on your page. Hmmm. Bishonen | talk20:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC).
I agree - an excellent photo Atsme. Our own Reddish egret states " Due to its bold, rapacious yet graceful feeding blocking behavior, author Pete Dunne nicknamed the reddish egret "the Tyrannosaurus Rex of eng-WP the Flats".DrChrissy(talk)21:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, DrChrissy - I have a chicken egg-laying question for you which I'll post to your TP. Bish, I used to call my ex-son-in-law the "blue heron" (he's 6'5"; 180#) - and a picture of him would definitely fit the "heron" bill in the humor category (but doubt he'd sign a talent release). If you need herons whose feathers are attached, I actually do have a few that I haven't uploaded, yet. So many pictures, so many places to use them!! See if I have anything in stock that fits the bill, and I'll check my vast stock library of herons (weeding out all the people) to see what materializes. Of course, with WP the images have to be in use or they get deleted. I don't think there's a repository for images that have potential purpose, so it has to be a special request where there's a need, and TP are considered use. I'm currently in the land of herons, pelicans, & flamingos, so place your order, and I'll see what miracles I can perform! . Atsme📞📧21:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, since you so kindly ask, Atsme, I'd like some just like the 100 herons that live on this small lake near my home, if that's all right? (That would be a miracle.) I just realized, from reading our Isbladskärret article, that they're descended from escapees from the Skansen zoo close by. Unfortunately we don't seem to have any pics of those handsome guys — there's only a boring old pump and some (I suppose cute, but bah) barnacle geese in the article. I should think my herons are Great Blue Herons, like the one on the wing that I linked to. They're big all right. Do you often meet those in your wanderings..? Bishonen | talk21:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC).
I wonder if this is a Great Blue? I don't think my guys have all that red spiky hair. Anyway, for the admin overview, I probably need to sit in a tree. Bishonen | talk21:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC).
Not a great blue, but a reddish egret which is a heron, and far more lively than a great blue in my book. They are beautiful, graceful, expert hunters. I've watched them for hours upon hours, days upon days. They deploy the "umbrella tactic" which diffuses the reflection of the water from above and allows them to see the submerged prey below - you could liken it to locating socks. 😉 Atsme📞📧22:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I also have coots but a different species than from ( Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough ) what you see on your lake. I've used one of my coot images in non-convential ways.Atsme📞📧22:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
If Darwinfish is the one in the beak of the black-crowned night heron, I don't think he/she/it needs to worry. The heron obviously bit off more than it could chew. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
You assume correctly. They are ALL female. That's why they are called "her"ons. (pa-dum-pum!) On the other hand, all Great egrets are males. Males named Greg. (Sorry, that was bird-nerd humor. The application eBird abbreviates species by the first two letters of each name. So the great egret is called GREG.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
(On the off chance that that was a serious question: you can't tell with herons. Males and females look alike.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Keeping with WP customs, just place the following under the image:
?
This heron has not revealed what gender he or she is. I doubt anyone will correct you if you're wrong.
@Atsme: I hope that cute iguana profile doesn't tempt Bishzilla to create another sock. Let it be known that she has only ever created one, the somewhat disappointing User:Bishapod, who she unmaternally refers to as "Little Stupid". ("Little Stupid always embarrass 'zilla! Regret creating!") So presumably she burned her fingers that time. Still, the iguana is very cute. Gorgeous chainmail! Bishonen | talk19:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC).
@Atsme: is it known that herons actually have binary genders? Could the heron pictured be intersex or transgendered, for example? Might the heron be neither he nor she? Maybe an alternative box?
?
This heron has made no gender-related on-wiki disclosures. Any incorrect assumptions you make are likely to go uncorrected... though a visit from Bishzilla is possible.
Couldn't Bishzilla be kept well-fed with a steady diet of vandals? Though I fear she would baulk at such meals, they are the frozen TV dinners of the wiki-world... claiming value where none exists, lacking in any flavour worth having, and causing long-term health problems. DHeyward, I have never thought of Bishonen as "male-sexed", she's such a leading lady of the admin corps, but of course I'll accept any identification which she expresses. EdChem (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
DHeyward, thanks for sharing that video. I wondered why the heron upchucked the gopher, and have since learned that herons have been known to choke to death trying to swallow prey that is too large. I found this video which was quite interesting as far as behavior, but the video you linked to wins the incredible shot award. Atsme📞📧04:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Bish. Is this kosher? An editor has spent roughly an year entirely redesigning an article and then has pasted the revised content into the article. Apparently with attributions maintained. I'm concerned that this goes against the spirit of Wikipedia (it is easier to scrutinize a few changes but impossible to do so with a 118000 byte change in one shot). I'm asking primarily because I see a problem developing between Fowler&Fowler, Lingzhi and WP:OWN. But am unsure enough that I don't want to make it into a big deal (which is why I'm not pinging the two - as yet!)--regentspark (comment) 14:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Regentspark, I did the same thing once: overwrote the existing Great Fire of London with a sandbox version I'd been working on for a long time, and with the same aim: to take it to FAC. But it's pretty different to do it with an article that's at all controversial, as Bengal famine of 1943 obviously is. It would have been better to change it gradually and invite talkpage discussion as you went along, IMO. That said, I don't doubt it was done in good faith. So... I'm not sure, but by now I reckon it had better be taken as a fait accompli, and any problems with the new version discussed piecemeal. What do you think, Sitush? Bishonen | talk14:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC).
Ok. Just a bit concerning when almost 50% of Lingzhi's edit count is on that one article in question. But, you're right that it is a fait accompli so will wait (and watch!). --regentspark (comment) 14:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is a done deal. It was not a great idea, though, and I have considerable doubts about the article as it now stands, despite the vocal support from some regulars at FAC. Presenting such a wall of text puts huge burdens on other people vis-a-vis scrutiny and, controversial although the subject matter may be, it doesn't need 200k of writing. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
(TPW driveby comment) Almost 50% of Lingzhi's edit count is on that one article in question is technically true but extremely misleading. Yes, the Lingzhi account has worked primarily on one topic, but under his main account Ling has 30,000+ edits across a huge range of topics. FWIW, "rewrite in a sandbox and overwrite the main article when the rewrite is complete" is an utterly standard technique on Wikipedia, to avoid either a history merge (which shoves thousands of minor edits into the history and makes it virtually impossible to navigate) or rewriting in mainspace which can result in a temporarily biased article (if one's doing the "insert view of historian A, then insert view of historian B, then insert view of historian C" approach and historian A has a fringe-y view). ‑ Iridescent17:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I was unaware of the earlier account though (doesn't the history carry over with a rename or is this something other than a rename?). --regentspark (comment) 17:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Only if the account is relatively new; once you get above a few thousand edits, the "rename process" consists of creating a fresh account and redirecting the old one. (Because every edit has to be changed in the databases when a user is renamed, renaming someone highly active crashes the servers.) ‑ Iridescent17:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, in this case, it's clearly the nature of the article- one already prone to ethno-political shennaigans- which has raised the question- inevitably the re-write draws accusations of- well, rewriting history :) ...other topics should be slightly less dramatic :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis17:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@RP, @Others: Setting aside the 118K morph, the article is evolving nicely! Lingzhi and F&F seem to recognize each other's contribution. Let them sort things out as they improve the article. The relevance of some of the images (US soldiers taking off their shoes!) to the subject of the article has me puzzled! But, they seem to be working on it. I like that pick from MelanieN's suggestion Bish!, but don't you think instead of Atsme's "This is Greg", it could be "This is Audrey!", Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I really couldn't work on it bit by bit in mainspace. Seriously. No way. If I coulda, I certainly woulda. But there are just... too.. many.. bits. Too many moving parts that got moved too many times... Seriously, I would've... made an incoherent hash of the mainspace article if I had even dared to try that. It would've been just a huge page of incoherent notes rather than an article. I added sections, then combined sections, then un-combined sections, then moved sections from here to there and another there.. and... added so many details.. and I often didn't understand the details myself, or know which were relatively more or less important, or how they fit together. I added stuff about the lack of an Industrial Revolution and the Great Depression and... then deleted them.. and.. and even in sections that I knew for sure should be there, I added note after note after note and tried to puzzle them together.. If I'd done that in mainspace, I would've turned the mainspace article into an incoherent jumbled hash of garbled garbage. A word splat. Text art.
The article as it stood in mainspace before my massive rewrite was 100% POV. I am not kidding. But at least.. at least it was a legible and reasonably coherent POV. I tolerated the mainspace version as POV for over a year (occasionally complaining on article Talk) because of meta:Eventualism. let's face it: Wikipedia is chock fulla POV. believe it or not, POV is actually more tolerable than... just... incoherent notes. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)05:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: Please know your effort has admirers. I hope you will find time to work on other famine related articles in South Asia and elsewhere. The history of those folks on the Indian subcontinent is tragic. Millions starved to death in famines, decade after decade. Imagine the trauma, the uncertainty, the pain of watching your children wasting away. The starved faced major epidemics, periodically, villages and towns wiped out. 1770-1905 period was one of periodic famines on the Indian subcontinent (beyond the 1943 famine). Perhaps the decades before too, but less documented. The famines and related tragedies impacted everything there – the poverty, talent, vanishing knowledge/ skills/ handicrafts, culture, society, relationships, migrations, beliefs, and the rest. Important topic this is. POV-pushing is easy with such complicated topics. NPOV is difficult, but a delight to read and much needed. Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
LOL, Bishonen is a vandal diff and Joppa Chong does not know how to deliver {{Uw-vandalism1}}, nor how to sign comments, and thinks that a null edit is vandalism. Someone might like to point out WP:VAND but it's probably pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Joppa Chong: this message, while well-intentioned, is silly. Bishonen made a dummy edit to note something in an edit summary, and marked it as such. This is a perfectly acceptable editing practice. It does not change the appearance of the page, though an extra space was added so the edit would save. It was marked as a null edit (which is technically incorrect), but it was certainly not vandalism. I recognise that this was your first user talk post outside your own user space, and that mistakes are easily made. Thanks for trying to do the right thing, but I encourage you to read up more on vandalism and on dummy edits as the edit in question did not need reverting and your warning is inaccurate as it was not vandalism. You might also read up on adding templates to long-standing editors (and in this case, admins). EdChem (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I might have been too bitey in my above comments, which were based on the fact that the account was created in December 2013. However, Bishonen's edit which was regarded as vandalism (WP:VAND is essential reading) was this immediately prior edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your messages. I think you know the inofficial status of Wikipedia:Essays as well. What remains to be said imho: Creating extra space for a longer edit summary might be ok but combining this with an off-topic remark in order to discredit the organization the article is about doesnt really seem constructive. –Joppa Chong (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Joppa Chong: allow me to be more direct. The vandalism policy is not an essay, nor is it unofficial. The edits Bishonen made are not vandalism, she is correct that "claimed" is not WP:NPOV (another policy, FYI), and the dummy edit explaining the inadequacy in the lede is both on-topic and accurate. Including criticism of an organisation from reliable sources is policy-compliant as part of maintaining neutrality, and is not an attempt to "discredit the organization," as you put it. In fact, removing sourced criticism which has due weight in the article is POV editing and policy non-compliant.
Removing the SPLC designation from the lede which you described as "restored neutral introduction" and marked as a minor edit
Removed the SPLC reference as a dead ref. link and marked as a minor edit
Roscelese re-added content noting the ref was not dead and the content was relevant
Joppa Chong changed "The SPLC has written about C-FAM's being ..." to "The SPLC has seen C-FAM ..." as a minor edit with summary "NPOV"
Bishonen reverted noting "That's not more NPOV, it's just worse English", and then changed the expression to "The SPLC has characterized the group as being ..."
Roscelese returned the content and link with the edit summary "restore sourced content with no coherent argument made for removal" and added an additional reference
Joppa Chong again removed the link to the SPLC list (again as a minor edit) with the same summary "removed link (not C-FAM-related)"
Joppa Chong added a "clarification" after the link to the SPLC list article that "C-FAM missing", which Roscelese reverted noting that "Rv - This article isn't the place to address that concern; if the linked article is out of date, tag it. It does mention CFAM, but not in the list section"
Joppa Chong then moved the link to the text, placing it in the context of a C-FAM source criticising the SPLC. (It remains in this form at present)
Roscelese removed the change, noting "[t]hat's not really something we can say in WP prose, especially given their activities. It might be possible to include it as a quote if it can be sourced"
Joppa Chong re-added with the edit summary "neutral description conform to sourced content"
Joppa, I was willing to assume that your initial warning to Bishonen was over-eager given your lack of posts to user talk space. The above editing history suggests that you have been pushing a POV against including the SPLC in this organisation's article for a long time. In the context of this history, your warning is beyond silly and appears intended as some sort of provocation. If your editing approach has not changed since 2015, then I think you are fortunate to have only been blocked once. I initially thought Johnuniq's post above was a little bitey, but I now whether you are here to contribute to a neutral encyclopaedia or to push a POV. EdChem (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Good god. I'd forgotten I'd blocked Joppa Chong before. Thank you all for your comments, especially for the timeline, Semper Crescis, it's very illuminating. Pinging @Roscelese: since she has been mentioned many times above. I would certainly consider sanctioning Joppa Chong for long-term tendentious editing at Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, culminating in this ridiculous revert and the "warning" to me, if it wasn't for the fact that I've edited the article and thereby become involved. (I've only edited it slightly, but I like to be careful about involvement). Are there any admin talkpage stalkers out there who would like to take a look? And @Joppa Chong: are you aware of the Conflict of interest guideline? Do you have any connection with the organization Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute? Are you employed by it? Bishonen | talk10:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC).
Yo Bishonen sorry, but I can't take credit for that excellent timeline- it was EdChem's work- but I didn't indent enough to distinguish between our posts- which I will do now- if we could give credit where it's due, poor ole EdChem! Bye, — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis10:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the appreciation, Bishonen, I'm glad it was useful. Since you are already involved, any thoughts on this change from August 2015 that still persists, presenting the list of SPLC anti-LGBT groups in the context of criticism from C-FAM? Also, just as an FYI, I did ping both Joppa Chong and Roscelese in my post, Joppa at the start and Roscelese at the second use of the user name (as I missed the first use when adding the link... oops!). EdChem (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC) PPS: Bishonen, the organisation was renamed to the Center for Family and Human Rights some while back... don't want Joppa claiming no link to the old name for the organisation as a wikilawyering dodge around your question. EdChem (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, right. I've reverted the edit from 2015; I agree with you. Bishonen | talk 14:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC). Also, so much has happened in this thread since the user was last online that they might miss my question. I've repeated it on their page. Bishonen | talk14:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC).
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I'm old, I know, but I'm not that old... I wasn't around when Bishzilla's ancestors were stomping around, terrifying abacus-bearing vandals with stone tools bothering innocent editors of Stonepedia! EdChem (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Joppa's behavior has been disruptive in the past, but I don't think there's anything recent (on this article; I don't know what else Joppa's been up to) that merits a sanction. They leapt way too hard on something that was clearly labeled a dummy edit, but the edit did actually add a space in the text where there shouldn't be one, so reverting it seems to be correct even if the warning was way out of line. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
"The edit did actually add a space in the text where there shouldn't be one" is incorrect, Roscelese. My edit only added a space in edit mode, which was invisible in the text our readers read. Adding a space, which doesn't show up on the page, is one of the standard ways of adding an edit summary without changing the readable text, see H:DUMMY. Bishonen | talk15:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC).
Huh, I never knew it only showed up in edit mode! When I've done dummy edits before I've always added the space on a line break because I thought they showed up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Roscelese: The fact that multiple spaces appears as one means that articles that have a mix of full-stop—single space—next-word and full-stop—double space—next-word don't appear to have a mix of spacings after full stops. It's also a reason that changing double spaces (which are useful for seeing sentence breaks in edit mode) to single spaces, as some editors and bots do, is irritating to some (including me!). If you look at this sentence in edit mode, you can see the effect in action. :) PS: Joppa Chong's recent edits to this article, there is the odd revert from Dec 2016 and the comment to Bishonen with the recent revert, suggestive of continued POV-pushing. Not sanctionable, true, but with warning an admin who previously blocked you, I suspect Joppa bears watching and perhaps some firmly-worded advice. EdChem (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
IP range block request - returning vandal
Hello Bishonen. A vandal who you previously blocked (for a month I think), has returned on the same IP range, but different addresses. They continue to add unsourced WWE events. See [277] for one example, on one IP. They seem to have moved to a new IP in the same range, to make similar edits: [278]. Could you please impose a further range block. Thank you. Silverfish (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, ye olde schäslong! It's the only image I can actually remember the name of. Well worth storing in memory for when a mention of it comes up every ten years. Classic spelling for 18th-century Swedish loanwords. Yes, comfy and stylish for tea-sipping in the boudoir. Bishonen | talk14:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC).
It is a little-known fact in physics and atmospheric sciences that the speed of a lightning strike is heavily dependant on the electrons' recent caffeine intake... EdChem (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Two hydrogen atoms meet up. One complains that they have lost an electron. The other says "Are you sure?". The complainant says "I am absolutely positive". - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Sitush It was always my understanding that the universe is made of protons, neutrons, electrons and morons. The latter must be the result of a missing hydrogen atom electron. Atsme📞📧14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't seen it because the pings were malformed. No worries - they've been playing this game for years now. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Bowdlerising
I just changed something to reflect the source. Do you think the original version of this might have been an attempt at bowdlerising? Whatever, I suspect that edit of mine will not last long. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
A common story is that in his resignation speech as an MP, Roy Jenkins, who had a speech impediment that caused his "r" to become "w", said "I leave this Chamber without rancour". To which some wit shouted out, "What?! Aren't you taking him with you?".The source in the caste article is generally reliable but I need to try to check the specific point because the claim isn't something I've seen before. Do we even have Wankers (caste)? If not, why not? - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and we have Vankar. However, Wanker does seem to be quite a common term. Those government lists are notoriously ambiguous, which is why we do not use them. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the source, ... a letter he has received from Dohad ... which mentions that the Dhedh women go out to labour in the field and thus become open for abuse by men. (Dhedhs are a sub-caste of the scheduled castes who have traditionally been weavers and are also called Wankers.), I'm not sure whether it's saying that the scheduled castes or the Dhedhs are "also called Wankers". Do you see the same ambiguity in that sentence? It seems to be the first time that Dhedh has been mentioned in the text, and so it seems more likely to me that that the "also called" is intended to apply to them, rather than to "the scheduled castes". I think the article might be better without mentioning the Wankers unless there's another source that can clear that ambiguity. I'll take a stab at it. --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
It is ambiguous. I'm currently working on a set of related caste articles, of which this is one, and all will eventually become clear. It's the usual routine: paring them back of all cruft etc and building them up again. FWIW, Chamars are leatherworkers and it is beginning to look like Dhedhs worked in a slightly lower but related role, moving carrion for them etc. How that translates to being a subcaste of a weaving community is beyond me but I'll figure it out. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Posted an ANI, but things got complicated
Hi Bishonen, I posted an ANI complaint here. User KazekageTR has made radical changes on Turkish War of Independence without sources or gaining any support from the talk page. Naturally, I reverted his/her edits, yet he/she was constant without even providing any edit summaries. This user even dropped F-bomb on my talk page. But then things got complicated when I got involved in an argument with JJBers and Tarage, but that's beyond the point. I'm just waiting for an Admin who at this point seems to not be coming anytime soon to help us sort this out, sorry about the inconvenience. (N0n3up (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
A relatively new editor is edit warring in this article, and has been twinkle warned about 3RR. @Jenishc has repeatedlydeleted information such as "millions of years" that is sourced from reliable secondary and tertiary sources, inserting unsourced vague information instead along with deleting the sources. The editor is being uncivil and unresponsive on the TALK:Rishabhanatha page. The troublesome editing is quite broad by this editor, not just on that page. Do GA level articles have more stringent revert rules? This editor's edit warring and TE needs a review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I was testing the autogeneration of 3RR report by Twinkle, thought it will give me a preview, but it directly filed all the paperwork on 3RR noticeboard (but with wrong diffs, my fault). I got it sorted out and filed it there with corrected diffs. Twinkling is complicated, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The user promptly retaliated by reporting you, but apparently was not aware that consecutive reverts count as one. I've closed their report, but unfortunately I don't have time to get stuck into yours. Anyway, since you're here on my page, it might be better if another admin does. Bishonen | talk23:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC).
Thank you! FWIW, this belongs to a space of articles where our SpacemanSpiff, Diannaa and I have previously tried to get the active editors to respect wiki policies and guidelines. Things have improved since then. A bit. Once in a while, we get the persistent disrupters. Haven't seen SpacemanSpiff in a while, hope he is enjoying the spring somewhere! MONGO's waterfall pic today is nice, peaceful. Just the soft sounds and music are missing!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Дагиров Умар, the user changed the date of the holiday and added several new sources, with the edit summary "Update sources". I'm not really the best person to assess the comparative merit of the old and the new sources, as they're both in Russian. I suggest you take it to the article talkpage. (Create a new section for it.) Bishonen | talk16:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC).
He gave sources where there are two official languages. But this does not give him any right to delete information from sources.--Дагиров Умар (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Didn't he just change the date? Was there something else? Because obviously he can't change the date of the holiday without removing the old date. Is there disagreement about the date between different groups? If so, the article should probably contain a discussion of the disagreement. But I'm only guessing. Please take it to the talkpage. Bishonen | talk16:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC).
Steel1943
Should I (or you, if it's protected) pull the farewell I wrote on the talkpage? They thanked for the edit, and didn't nuke it, but they might want the page blank nonetheless. Anmccaff (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, no, don't remove it. Steel1943 requested protection of their userpage, only, at WP:RFPP, and I obliged. If they had wanted the talkpage blank, they would surely have blanked it and requested protection of that as well. I'm sure your post was welcome. Bishonen | talk21:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Thanks, it would be great to get your feedback on some of those issues on the talk page and/or any of the other edits made, but it's not really clear what the purpose of the alert is? Cypresscross (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
(No need to ping me on my own page.) The purpose is to emphasize that biography articles are especially delicate, and therefore admins have been permitted by the Arbitration Committee to issue both editor sanctions and page restrictions for these articles on their own single admin discretion. Aren't admins allowed to block editors and protect pages on their own discretion, then, you may ask? Yes; but not to topic ban editors, which is an important form of sanction when it comes to safeguarding articles from people with an agenda. (Topic bans, in areas that are not under discretionary sanctions, can only be issued by the community, after discussion on WP:AN or WP:ANI, a much more cumbersome procedure.)
Valborgsbrasa
Biographies are peculiarly susceptible to promotion: by the subject of the article, by people in the subject's employ, and by admirers or disciples. Worse, they can be given a subtle or overt negative slant by the subject's real-life enemies. The articles Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management have previously been subjected to promotional efforts, and I blocked one editor indefinitely in 2016 (they have since been found to be abusing multiple accounts and have been blocked even more indefinitely). I simply want new editors to be aware of previous problems, and of the fact that neutrality is a principle taken seriously here. But I hope you noticed the sentence in italics at the top of my alert (which I know people tend to miss): The message does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. Sorry, I won't take part, or take sides, in the discussion on the talkpage; I intend to stay uninvolved and neutral. As for your other contributions, I can't say I've been following them, sorry. I don't have time to do very much on Wikipedia these days, especially this time of year when I'm busy enjoying the springtime, the only pretty ringtime, when birds do sing, hey ding a ding ding. Bishonen | talk21:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC).
Oops on the ping. Thanks for the thorough explanation. I think the risks of a negative slant are just as common as the risks of a positive slant, and arguably an article needs both the positive and the negative (it might be impossible for humans to avoid some (even slight) slant entirely, although we can strive for it?). Also, I suppose articles could be given subtle or overt negative slants by ideological enemies (and not just real-life ones)? I understand that you didn't mean to take sides, but I hope you can appreciate that by posting the notice on my talk page (following a debate with another editor), it could be seen as taking a side, or questioning neutrality.
@Cypresscross: As I mentioned, the article I'm concerned with has been subject to promotional efforts. By contrast, I haven't seen any negative editing there (even though the promotional account which was indeffed, User:Orthodox2014, used to insist that any attempt to remove their promotion was negative editing and a sign of bias — but then promotional accounts will do that). I only mentioned giving a negative slant in general above, because it's so important — not because I see it as relevant to Emmanuel Lemelson. Since the discussion on talk suggests you're having a disagreement with an experienced editor, User:Grayfell, about including/excluding possibly undue quotations and the like, I certainly think it was appropriate to give you the alert. Compare also, from January, the edit summary by an administrator here, which suggests your first edits to the article had reinstated some of the wording Orthodox2014 had insisted on. I'm not suggesting you have any relationship with the disruptive Orthodox2014 and their socks, but would you mind telling me if you have any relationship with Lemelson that rises to a conflict of interest (please click on the link)? One of your first edits after registering this account was on Talk:Donald Trump, supporting the inclusion of text (and/or image — it's not entirely clear to me) mentioning Lemelson's blessing of Trump in 2015.[280] You certainly seem to have an interest, which isn't necessarily to say a conflict of interest, of course. Bishonen | talk14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC).
My comments above are also general in nature about WP. There is no conflict of interest. The edits have been neutral (if bold), but these articles do need work. Cypresscross (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
What happens on 13 May? Sitush, are you aware that tonight is the magical Walpurgisnacht, when the witches come out and we burn all our old garden furniture to encourage the spring? I don't understand why nobody has posted any celebratory Valborg fire pictures on this page. Bishonen | talk22:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC).
Here in the US it is Loyalty Eve, tomorrow being Loyalty Day (dreading that link turning blue, as I'm sure it will). I do need to note that you've given me a most excellent idea on what to do with the mountain of old garden furniture behind my house. Antandrus(talk)22:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
This side of the pond, it's called Labour Day, also known as International Workers' Day, an event which replaced a European Spring festival with one commemorating a rally in Chicago, USA. I'm not implying it has to make sense. My sole piece of advice to Antandrus would be to move the furniture behind somebody else's house first. --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Bishzilla is ridiculously mellow these days. However, you should be aware that Darwinbish visits in the pocket from time to time. [Diabolical laughter] Bishonen | talk15:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC).
Thanks. For some of us with vision defects things like tilting text, etc. can be a challenge. I didn't want to make an issue of it because it was all in good fun, and fun is good. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh crap. Is there really a problem? After I saw that all the cool people were doing it, I tilted my TOC. Now I've adjusted it so it's just barely tilted. Should I be expecting a visit from the tilt police? RivertorchFIREWATER05:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I shouldn't think so. Forewarned is forearmed. Those of us with space-perception disturbances can take our Dramamine or Antivert ahead of time. Dlohcierekim 09:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh good. I mean, it's all relative, right? Maybe it's really vertical, and everything else on the Internet is skewed. @Dlohcierekim, I swear I'm not colluding with Big Pharma. RivertorchFIREWATER16:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.
There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Jenishc socks, semi-protect request for two Jainism articles
@El C:, @Bish: You had blocked hopping IP socks of Jenishc: 131.215.220.162 and 131.215.220.163. Now they are back with 131.215.220.161. The affected articles are Mahavira (diff1) and Parshvanatha (diff2). Perhaps a 2 week semi-protection of the two articles and a short period block of 131.215.220.* or something appropriate is the next step? Might help the "It wont stop me" sock, who has been mocking El_C, to laundry their intentions, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
A known and extremely troublesome person who operates the account "Panrussia" is being vandalising the articles related to the Civil Services of India namely, Civil Services of India and Central Civil Services. He is vandalising the articles himself and calling others vandals. He's extremely rude to EVERYONE, yes to everyone! Not only that he's sock of "Vrghs Jacob", one of the most infamous socks on Wiki. Currently he's operating Motbag12, "Wikicab" and "Uncletomwood" and several other accounts which I'm not aware of in addition to the above mentioned account (Panrussia). I feel that a checkuser should be performed in this regard. Also, here's the reference and the updated list (as of 3rd April 2017) of the Central Civil Services of India (Group A) for your ready reference. http://document.ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02adm/OMUpdationoflistdated03.04.2017.pdf
It is an official circular of the Govt. of India and the file is hosted on Govt. of India's servers (National Informatics Center (NIC)) of India. The is the most recent list of services and the subject is to Update the list of services which has undergone several changes over the past few years.
Thanks!
I'm busy right now, but I'll take a look in a few hours' time. Note that you can sign your posts by typing four tildes, ~~~~. (Yes, IP editors can do that too.) Bishonen | talk11:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC).
Update: I've looked, and have blocked Panrussia indefinitely for legal threats (the edit summary here) as well as disruptive editing and personal attacks. I considered opening an SPI report for the socking you allege, but didn't find it convincing enough — I thought a CU would probably decline to look. You can do it yourself, of course, or give me more and better evidence if you have it. Bishonen | talk15:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC).
Bishonen, I've reblocked Panrussia as a CU block and blocked another account, Wikicab(talk·contribs·count), as the same person. I tagged them improperly at first because Motbag12 is Stale, but then I found data on it and was able to confirm the two newer accounts as socks of Motbag12. I haven't looked at the other users the IP mentions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Now that you've taken it away :( I bet they are forced! I so bet. Freedom to the Yoga Goats! Support the Yoga Goats Liberation Movement! Hairy chins to all who oppress our Yoga-imprisoned Goat comrades! ...uuurghhh....
Oh, gee. Thank you very much for your care, Ed. IP, your range has been blocked for a week for those threats. Better have clean hands when you report a violation. Bishonen | talk17:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC).
No doubt in my mind, Ed. Blocked for a week. Somebody remind me why we don't require people to create an account, again? Bishonen | talk17:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC).
Thanks a lot, everyone! I wrote a long message, but due to edit conflict I don't know where it is now.
This guy uses religious (brings in "Hindu, Christian" in conversation / edit summary for no apparent reason), regional / national / racist insults ("Indian illiterates" and "white trash" as used by Motbag12). This guy claims to be possible outing and personal attacks redacted
His currently active accounts known to me:
"Uncletomwood", "Motbag12", "Panrussia", "wikicab" among several others I have no knowledge of. His main sock was "Vrghs Jacob".
He loves to edit (mostly destroy):
Vehicle beacon lights in IndiaIndian order of precedenceIndian Police ServiceIndian Administrative ServiceIndian Ordnance Factories ServiceMinistry of Defence (India)Indian Armed ForcesCentral Civil ServicesCivil Services of IndiaIndian Revenue Service
and all articles related to Taxation in India.
It would be great if you can add these articles to watchlists as he will be coming back within a few minutes given his past record.
Thanks a lot, again! I shall seek your help again whenever I come across him again.
P.S.: I saw that you guys have dealt with him before too, but must be busy so wrote to both of you.
Update: I'm sorry guys to use such harsh words, I'm a cool-headed person, but this kid brings out the worst in me. I shall refrain myself from editing Wiki for week (or even longer if you guys think), but please restore my edits to the articles Civil Services of India and Central Civil Services and please watch the pages while I'm away. Thanks again! Yes, I'm the same person! I sometime use mobile and sometimes wifi. I'll keep away for a week, don't worry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.28.252 (talk • contribs)
I've blocked the IPs you used for the attacks, and used to post here, and now you think you can post here with a different IP, really? A block applies to the person, not a particular IP or account. I hope you do stay away for the time of your block. And note that outing is taken very seriously here. In fact, if you had done that from an account, you would have been blocked indefinitely. I may take a look at those articles later. Bishonen | talk17:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC).
Hi everyone, including the unknown IP. I am uncletomwood and I am one of the alleged editors. I repeat that I have really nothing to do with those socks. I agree that I have done my fair share of disruptive editing and lying (way back in 2014 and since then have stopped) but it deeply saddens and depresses me when this IP alleges me of something I haven't even done. This IP with all due respect to him has threatened and even called my father and myself "names and sobriquets" which are absolutely uncalled for and untrue. I repeat that I have nothing to do with any of those socks of Vrghsjacob. I want to take this opportunity to tell the IP that threatening me was really uncalled for and has upset me. He has written such nasty comments against me on talk pages and edit history pages when I haven't even done anything. With all due respect to him, he really needs to refrain himself from such petty squabbles with people on Wikipedia so that the "worst" isn't brought out by him. I have tried contacting him, clarifying to him that I am not the same person he alleges me to be but to no avail. I kindly request the IP to kindly calm down and converse with me and the Wikipedia admins to kindly expunge any personal remarks made from talk pages/ edit histories if they deem fit. I REPEAT that I really have nothing to do with any of those socks.
PS: I am redacted personally-identifying information he wants everyone to be beware of. He has mentioned my name in various edit histories and talks. I am not related to any of those socks. Can't people with similar interests edit pages? This is absolutely been a pain for me seeing redacted description of outing-related allegations. Requesting admins to hear my plea and that I am ready for any checkuser any other investigation to show that I am not among those accused socks.
So, Uncletomwood, if you have nothing to do with those socks, how did you find this discussion here? Nobody has pinged you. Also I don't understand why you tell me your real name here, if you don't want your personal information known. However, if you seriously want people to do something about your personal information being revealed, please give diffs for where it happened. See Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide for how to create diffs. Whole page histories, or slabs of 500 edits on page histories, as you give above, aren't very useful. But don't give the diffs here, giving further publicity to the personal details; e-mail them to the oversight team at oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Bishonen | talk21:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC).
1)My name was flashed brazenly on edit histories like Civil Services of India whose pages I watch. When I saw the discussions between Panrussia and the unknown IP and how the IP had mistaken Panrussia to be me(due to him specifically mentioning my name on edit histories), I was closely watching the discussion and even pinged him on his IP hoping that the he is clarified that I am not the same person as these socks due to his malicious hate campaign against me on edit histories and talk pages. Since I was following this discussion, I saw Panrussia blocked and found you via his talk page as you blocked him.2) Please check my edit history where I made attempts to talk to that IP to clear my name. I revealed my personal information HERE, on my own accord to prove to that IP who is possibly reading this message to let him know again that I am not the same person and he needs to stop using the language he used against me. He has threatened me and his nasty comments were definitely not nice. I will email them to the oversight team. Uncletomwood (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
i put the beacon article up for AfD again. the previous AfD was innapropriately speedykept in a NAC, by wikidemo.... way back in '08. -- Aunva6talk - contribs18:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whether Uncletomwood is related to the recently-blocked socks, but I do know that the IP editor thought so. Perhaps a CU can comment? I do know, however, that Uncletomwood's user page gives me pause. According to it, Uncletomwood has a PhD and is an academic, but is (according to the post above) is a 22 year old law student. As an academic who actually does have a PhD, which involved very considerable work on my part, I object to these claims being made falsely. I also have a problem with deliberate misrepresentation in user space that appears aimed at bolstering credibility in article content discussions. EdChem (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
yeah, the userpage... it doesn't strike me as that of an academic, more like that of your average undregrad student. i mean, just look at my userpage... userboxes everywhere... -- Aunva6talk - contribs06:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
It is true. I am not an academic and I am only a student. I did falsely claim that I am a Phd student amongst other lies in 2014. I agree. I did carry out some disruptive editing as well back in 2014. The IP has conversed with me in 2014 and he picked up my lie by finding out who I really was. I agree there was deliberate misrepresentation carried out by me and I am ready to face any consequence including a lifetime ban. But I only want that my name as well my father's name is not tarnished and that it is held that I am not the socks of Vrghs Jacob (Panrussia, Motbag, Wikicab etc). Uncletomwood (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I have removed all information from my user page. I am ready to leave wikipedia because I did lie. I did falsely represent myself in 2014. I only want that I am not harassed and threatened in this manner. I am ready to undego any checkuser investigation/any other investigation to ban me but also to clear me of the sock allegations. Uncletomwood (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Uncletomwood, as I've already said, if you're concerned about edits that identify you personally and threaten you, please do e-mail Oversight about these edits, with diffs. I hope you can find the diffs yourself, rather than putting somebody else, such as me or the oversighters, to the work of finding them. It should be easier for you, since you remember about them, and should give a more complete result. Again, see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. @Bbb23: have you seen Uncletomwood's posts here, and do you think they warrant action? Bishonen | talk09:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC).
Yes, I need something for my headache. I don't really have anything to add that I haven't already said to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I have removed personal information shown above. Bishonen, could / should you revdel the history from when the IP and then Uncletomwood made comments that are now redacted? Is oversight warranted here too, beyond that already requested by email? EdChem (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. I suppose so. Having to revdel people who out themselves... grumble grumble... but you're right, Ed. Done. Hopefully. It's kind of complicated to find the right edits. Nobody uses edit summaries in this place. Do you see anything I missed? Bishonen | talk18:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC).
Don't you have to revdel everything from the IP edit you rev-del'd until mine removing the text, or it is still isible in all the intervening edits? I can understand your grumbles, maybe a message to Uncletomwood that outing is prohibited and will be oversighted but any further self-disclosure is unlikely to be removed from the histories, which would mean further information from IPs may no longer qualify as outing under policy? Protecting editors from themselves only goes so far. EdChem (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes Ed, you're right. I've revdel'd all the versions with the personal info. Since this was "self-outing", I don't think the OS criteria are met, so I just revdel'd, no oversight. Bish, I defer to you if you don't want so many versions revdel'd, just undo it; I'm not playing the OS card here. But it has to be all or nothing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Uncletomwood: I don't think anyone is asking that you leave, if they were a block of you would be requested. I do appreciate that you have removed untrue claims from your user page, though blanking it was not necessary... but that's up to you. Admitting to mistakes and errors is the mature thing to do, and the WP community is generally fairly forgiving so long as you learn from and avoid repeating your mistakes. Oversighting edits / edit summaries that include outing is a request supported by policy, and admins will act on harassment when they see it / on request... you can repay this with policy-compliant editing and by not retaliating when attacked. EdChem (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand and I thank you for it. I admit to my mistakes and I invite all you senior editors/admins (and the IP editor) to personally monitor my future edits, if possible. Uncletomwood (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
personally, i don't see that that's necessary, you've been editing in Good Faith, and there's really no need for close scrutiny. life is all about learning, and you've learned to be a good contributor. as the Bible says: Go forth and sin no more. -- Aunva6talk - contribs23:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Akib.H sock farm closure, new copy-paste POVFORK!!
@Bish:, @NeilN: Re the Akib.H case. They were warned about the edit warring and wp:canvass. Later, I had filed an SPI, without CU request (my error, one fixed by Ivanvector). The investigation confirmed a sock farm, and it prolly needs a closure / accounts block review?
Berean Hunter just closed out the Akib.H sock farm. Thanks Berean. @Bbb23: I was wondering about Orient Bengal account. Felt like a sock of someone, knows too much wikilawyering lingo and Bengali Calendar edit history to be a new account. Has been edit warring and arguing with Kautilya3 and SteveMcCluskey. Unusual and disruptive. Thanks for plugging that one too, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm taking a break. Please ask another admin if you have a problem. And watch out, the trolls may get you too.
.jpg)
Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.
One day, someone will create a Rollback option for Admins to help with revdel - you are not the first Admin I have heard complain about the difficulty of revdel'ing multiple edits. Scr★pIronIV 13:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention#Removal_of_pending_report_and_re-reporting_of_redundant_reports.3F regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
! Class455fan1 (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Bishzilla will fall before the might of Ugandan electronica!!! Just you wait until they learn another instrument! Muffled Pocketed 15:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Likely technical connection to blocked sock Cantloginnow, the account is safe to block.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Mmm, pretty nice! Bishonen | talk 02:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC).
.JPG)
Like—cyber>powerTrick or Treat:Online 17:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=small}
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
From the Tex-pack to the Bish-pack. Tex (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
That's what I was thinking and not only in geographic templates even in music and biographic related templates too. I have replaced that symbol on few stub templates and still doing on others. I have not yet requested G2 on the first one but there are some more which fall under G2 so am working on those at the moment. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Obituaries
_spreading_wings.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Just what you need. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC).
.jpg)
Done. X4n6 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
_(14763349834).jpg)
" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
I wasn't aware of a problem with X's edit counter — I thought cyberpower678 was maintaining it? Aren't you, Cyber? Bishonen | talk 10:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
Fixed . Some editors have a userbox that says they are part of the/a cabal though. And there are several essays that go back and forth about the issue. The one I like the most is Wikipedia:List of cabals, as it is closer to a list of groups that have been identified as or self-identify as a cabal (humorously). [274] is also a good read. There are many more articles both locally and from outside Wikipedia if you would like to know more. Endercase (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 18:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
. Atsme📞📧 21:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough ) what you see on your lake. I've used one of my coot images in non-convential ways. Atsme📞📧 22:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
. Bish - One more add-on for when you're feeling all warm & cushy inside and just want to spread some love...a bit of a stretch on WP, I know, but miracles happen. Atsme📞📧 22:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 16:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
Miscellaneous
Stale, but then I found data on it and was able to confirm the two newer accounts as socks of Motbag12. I haven't looked at the other users the IP mentions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
. also, yeah, i've seen some interesting edits to those pages form time to time. (talk page stalker) -- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed to Bazaan (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[93]](http://i.imgur.com/QClSWkz.gif){kind=link}
![[110]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_September_17#File:RSC_Staircase.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[276]](http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/icehockey/images/3/3d/Red_Heron.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110104230931){kind=link}
